
    Respublica against Guardians of the Poor in the city of Philadelphia.
    S. C. 2 Dall. 224.
    Mandamus will not lie to the guardians of the poor in the city of Philadelphia, to continue three of the old managers to _ superintend the alms house and house of employment for the succeeding six months.
    Motion by Messrs. Iugersoll and Bradford, for a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to the guardians of the poor in the city of Philadelphia, to proceed to an election of three managers of the alms house and house of employment, their election and appointment on the 25th March last, having been defective and illegal.
    They contended, that the guardians of the poor not having appointed three of the old managers to superintend the alms house and house of employment, was pregnant with inconveniences, as it introduced persons into offices with the duties whereof they were wholly unacquainted, and that the offices of managers and overseers of the poor were distinct in then nature. Though the law of the 25th March 1782, was not very explicit on this head in terminis, yet the intention of the legislature was sufficiently evident from the 6th section thereof, (2 Dali. St. Daws, 19,) “that there should always be some “experienced persons in office;” and this court was competent to mould the act into form and judge of its true meaning. They insisted that the uniform practice, since the year 1788, (when the eventual new corporation of the guardians of the poor took place under the provisions of that act,) had been, to leave three of the old managers in office for the succeeding six months, and thereby their duties were readily and easily discharged, and that this usage had great weight. The cognizance of seamen’s wages in the admiralty, 1 Salk. 33, the courts of Quarter Sessions originating matters of- apprenticeship, i Stra. 704, and maintenance of the poor per saltum, Comb. 321, and cases of warrants of distress for poor rates, Comb. 342, 1 Lord Raym. 42, have all been determined merely on the footing of usage. The interests of the community were involved in the present measure, and it was hoped that the court would interpose therein.
    Mr. Rawle e contra for the guardians,
    denied, that either the act of 1782, or that of 27th March 1789, (2 Dali. St. Laws, 685,) * restrained them to the appointment of any of pMyir the old members; but the legislature had left it in their discretion to appoint any six of their own number. He denied the extent of the usage asserted on the other side.
   Per Curiam.

The practice was certainly a good one, to leave in three of the old managers on a new appointment, and tended to train up new members to a ready discharge of their offices. But the legislature have not thought proper to put the guardians under this restriction; the appointment is left to their discretion, and one half of the overseers are succeeded by others every six months. We should go too far in saying that the late election has been defective and illegal. The legislature only can give a full and complete remedy, and through them application for redress must be sought, if inconveniences arise from appointments similar to the present.

Motion overruled.  