Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-08-27

Total miles lego, at zoe per mile SIX W
| Deduct miles charged from
/ Oakland to San Fran
! cisco 5lO mites
! Esna Springs .-.-------. -ooV niiioS
Total deduction. 900 miles at zoe. $50 90
,.n,.,ro.+e cb,rce ............. $50 90
We have not applied this form of test to the other
vouchers filed by Director Everson The entire flle
is submitted to YOU as part OF the testimony taken
| by us. In the judgment OF this Commission
neither the Act OF 1880 nor the Act OF 1881 admits
of the construction placed upon it by Director Ever
SON. The action in using San Francisco as the basis
of charges for mileage to Folsom, and Oakland as
the basis OF charges for mileage to San Francisco
and San Quentin, does not grow out OF legal con-
struction or nadyertance, but is in the judgment
Of this Commission, the result OF a conscious pur-
pose the part of Director Everson to augment tie
amount Of his claims for mileage.
These vouchers also present plainly great lack
in the economic appointment OF meetings In a
majority of the months the charges for round trip
mileages show the meetings attended to have been
held at such close dates that the Directors living at
the greatest distances must have been kept almost
constantly travelling.
Ia his~oucher filed July 81, 1885, Director schell
gives the following dates OF charges:
July 3-Modesto to San Franeisco-miles. -. lis
July 5-San Francisco to San Quentin. ..... u
July San Quentin to San Francisco. ........ 10
July San Francisco to San Quentin. ......., -
July SSan Quentin to Modesto. ............,-.l2 rs
~
July 13-FOlsom to San Francisco. .............ll ia
July 14-San Francisco TO San Quentin return 20
July 1S-San Francisco to Modesto. ..........l rs
July 29-Modesto to Sab Quentin and return zoo
Total 9O7
Or Sl6I 40 for mileage.
Director Chspman's voucher for the same month
shows him TO have travelled 1882 miles to attend
meetings. aggregating 1906 40 for mileage IN one
month. Had the meetings tended been held at
such time as would have enabled the Directors to
attend all in single round trip, material saving
to the State could have been effected.
OPINION OF THE ATToRNEY-GENERAL.
Since the foregoing portion of this report was
written, as precauton against error your Commls-
sion decided to refer the legal questions at issue to
the Attorney General OF the State. The reply re
ceiyed is appended as follows
SACRAMENTO August Is, 1881.
"The Commission to investigate certain matters
connected with the State Prison, recently appointed
by the Governor, has asked my op Mon as to the
proper construction and the constitutonailty OF
Section of an Act OF the Legislature OF this Safe,
entitled Act To amend Sections II, II, Is and
90 and to repeal Section so Of an Act entitled an act
10 define, regulate and govern the State Prisons OF
California, approved April 15 1850 The latter Act
was passed and approved March a. 1881.
'SectiOn OF the latter Act amends Section II OF
the former so as to make it read as follows Sec
tion IL The Directors shall receive no compensa-
tion other than 10 cents per mile for travelling eX-
penses, and 500 per month for other expenses in
'S
duty e.c, etc.
"If by this section it was intended to authorize
the Directors to receive the ten per mile and
the 500 per month, whether that amount OF en-
pense incurred or not it Is clearly and unques-
tionablY in concJ with Section of Article Y OF the
Constitution, and under it, not the actual eX
penses OF the members of the Board can be drawn
from the treasury Ii, on the other hand, it was
only intended by the section TO limit the amount
OF actual expenditures to tea cents per mile and 500
per month for each Director, then the section can
not lie construed as allowing to any Director any
amount in of his actual expenditures, and no
)unt exceeding what had actually and necessarily
been incurred in the performance OF official duties
could lawfully be paid to any Director under Its
provisions
The section is peculiarly and awkwardly framed.
1t provides that no compensation other than ten
cents per mile for travelling expenses and 500 per
month for ether expenses incurred shall be re-
ceiyed by the Directors The language of the Sec
ton itself to require that the expenses should
be incurred before the amount should be received
From the section alone it is apparent that it not
the intention of the Legislature to donate to the
Directors the amounts either of tie amounts |
me toned. The Act simply undertakes to author
ize the payment of the expenses incurred by the
Directors but to limit those expenses to ten cents
per mile for travelling and 500 per month for other
expenses incurred. This construction is materially
aided by the provisions of Section Of Article y.
Of the Constitution, which reads as follows
80 The members Of the Board State Board of
! Prison Direetors) shall receive no compensation
other than reasonable travelling and other expenses
incurred while engaged in tie performance of official
duties TO be audited the Legislature may direct.
Ii is obvious from the very language OF the foregoing
provision Of the Constitution that any construction
OF any Act of the Legislature which would give
| to the Directors anything more than actual
expenses, would necessarily construe the Act to be
a paip3ble and fragrant violation of the plain
! est words OF that provision, and 1t is 4 rule
Of universal application that where an Act OF
the Legislature is susceptible of more than
| one Interpretation that construction should be
adopted which viii make the Act conform to and
meet the requirements Of the Constitution.
- am therefore of the opinion that the said Act
does not purp1rt 10 authorize the Directors OF the
st te Prison TO receive anything other than reason
able and actual expenses for their official services
and it may not be out OF place for me TO say that
/ so advised one of the Directors some time ago. l
| have the honor to be yours respectfully,
"a. L. HART, Attorney-Gen