The Weston Democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1875-current, 1880-11-27

do not Fix the amount Of his salary
but leaves it to the dissertation Of TIN
County Court, 10 make such allow
ances annually, as in its opinion
are just and proper. within th,
limits Of $500 and $1,000, as provid
ed for in the lctS Of 1923, 50 that
for the first year it might he $500
for the second, 500, for the third
$3.50, and tnr the fourth $500.
These are plain propositions cS-
tahliShed bv Constitution and by
Law. Int il from malice or weak
hess nfintallcct any bmju,lice.l per
son could think otherwise, q refer
ence to the decision ola parallel
ease made hy the Court Of Appeals
Of this State would overthrow tllz
plea Of mental imbeeilily, and
would rest il solely upon malicious
and corrupt motives. The case Re.
ferrsd 10 l. thai Of lsurker vs.. SUI
pcTv;surS, decided at the July term
Of said Court. 1871 (Sre ! VI. Va.
Rep. GGi. In this case it appears
that Rucker, in October, 1870 was
elected prosecuting attorney Of the
county Of I'ocahoNtas, for the term
Inftwo years, commencing on the
l.t Of January, 1871. lie qualified
and discharged the duties Of his
office. III December, 1866, the
Board Of Supervisors tiScll the sui.
AIRY of prosecuting attorney at $500
per nMnum, and the attorney re-
ccived ut that rate up TO the LIST Of
January, 1871. More than four
months after Fuckers Term Of Of
flee commenced the Board reduced
the salary to $3.50 per annlm.
Fucker claimel that when he went
into Office his salary was fixed ut
1900, and that it could not lie in
creased or diminished during his
Term Of office; but the Court Of APP
prals decided shat the Constitu-
lion applied only 10 such salaries
or compensation Of public officers
as have been definitely fixed or pre-.
scribel by law, either by The Con-
>titution Of the State or by statute
made in pursuance thereof. This
is not the case in regard 10 the
compensation Of attorney OF a
county, who il paid for his services
in the manner hereinhetore indi-
Gated, and by no fixed salary pre-
scribel By law" This caSe Is sim
liar To the case Of Governor Jack
son, in all its substantial facts, eX-
crpt il was Il reduction instead Of
an increase Of salary.And that Gov
ern0r JacksolI's case was under Il
new Constitution and laws made in
pursuance thereof, and that his in
creased allowance was made by The
County Court,a tribunal not known
to the Constitution of 1863. The
reason of the reduction i'll Fuckers
case does not appear, but the in
crease in Jacksoli's case does, by
reason Of the additional duties i'm
| p0setIznpuntlie #rrosecuting5attor.
lley bythe act of thesl.egiSlNturc,
approved Srd of=April,, 1873, emit.
tied @.tn5Actp ovHIing=lor=the=ex.
animation ofpersons charged with
felony before the County Court
See Acts=lS12'3, page $50. lie.
fore this act passed, when Il party
waS charged witha felony, lie was
sent directly by the Justice who ex-
amincd him IL the Circuit Court
for final trial; under this act, he
was sent to the County Court for
examination, and iii appeared up-
Oh the examination that Il felony
had been committed, and that
there was probable cause to charge
the party accused Herewith, he was
sent t" The Circuit Court for final
trial, thus imposing upon the attor-
ncy, substantially the aFdllo'IS !u'
y OF prosecuting Tie party lwlre'
unless he was d! -; ~ the
County Court; These c eSnnlna'
tons IN the County CSnrt were
GENERALLY more pr"traGted !I'an Tue
final trial before tie Circuit Court
we trust that We nave shown t .
III TINS matter OIL prosecuting NIl"f.
ney, there was no sHIary grab OF
"ek-pay' or the slightest lmpr".
pF'e'S upon the part Oh Governor
Jackson.