Petitions - City of Somerville

\
-.'
Thursday^ June 26. 1950
In my opinion nothing could be more conductive to the general
welfare than to assist persons out of employment in obtaining work in order
to provide for their families, the need of which is very apparent at the present
time. The creation of a Municipal Employment Bureau under circumstances
such as exist today in my opinion is not repugnant to lav; and may well be
authorized by the clause permitting cities and towns to pass orders and by
laws for managing and ordering their prudential affairs in such manner as
they shall judge most conductive to the peace welfare and good order of the
community. •
See Willard vs Inhabitants of Newburyport 12 Pickering,
page 222 at page 231
where Chief Justice Shaw stated "-after all, the question recurs, what are the
pnudential concerns of a town; perhaps no better approximation to an exact
description can be made than to say that it embraces that large class of miscellaneous
subject-s affecting the accommodation and convenience of the inhabitants
which have been placed under the municipal jurisdiction of towns
by statute or usage."
In this particular case, the question was whether or not the
town could pay for the repairing of a town clock and the court held that it
could do so. In my opinion the work of the employment bureau under present
existing conditions is much more conductive to public welfare and convenience
and accommodation of the inhabitants than- the repairing of a clock such
as v;as the fact in this particular case.
See also Clark vs Fall River, 219 Mass at page 584
219 Mass, page 580
G. L. Chapter 40, section 5.
This provision of the General Laws above referred to has been
in effect since 1692 and has been carried through the various revisions of
the laws up to the present time. The test in this case was whether or not the
creation of this employment bureau was repugnant to law, and in my opinion
its creation would not be repugnant to law, and is not illegal.
However, the legality of this bureau at the present time is
not important because your Honorable Board has transferred the appropriation
originally made for the employment bureau to the executive department. Tbe
executive department is now attending to the care of the unemployment situation
by the addition of secretaries to the staff of the Mayor's Office and
is being carried on under his direction. Therefore, in my opinion, the question
of the legality of the employment bureau is really not longer before thi3
board and a further expression of opinion on my part is unnecessary.
. Board of Aid.ermen,
Somerville, Mass.
Gentlemen:
Placed on file.
Respectfully submitted
David J. Kelley
City Solicitor.
City of Somerville
Massachusetts
Office of the City Solicitor
June 26, 1930.
In compliance with the order approved by_your Honorable Board, May
8, 1930 concerning the application for license for a filling station by
Stokes and Finnigan on the Northern Artery, so-called, and requesting my
opinion on the four questions mentioned in said order, I herewith submit the
following opinion:
Answering the first question mentioned in said order, It Is my
opinion that the Board of Aldermen have full power and authority to grant a
license for a gasoline filling station at the location, provided that the
said license is granted subject to the provisions of the zoning ordinance
of the city of Somerville. The Board could not grant any license on that location,
-which would entitle the licensee to do anything in violation of the
zoning ordinance of the city of Somerville. The licensee must take such
steps as may be necessary in order to comply with the law before his license
can become effective.
737
44835
737
\