The Fremont County record., 1882-08-19

|incumbents tho benefit OF tho incrSnse
Of salary from the first day Of March,
A. D. 1891. The provision Is In the
following language; "Thas on and
siter the fret day Of March, A. ID.
1881, the salaries Of the following
designated public officers, including
those thercofwho may be incumbents
of such offices shall be ns herein pro.
vided," and then follows the mention
of governor, his secretary and the
judges of the supreme and district
courts. Under that provision, the
adoption of the amendment would
give Governor Pitkiu and the judges
Of the supreme and district courts,
who were in Office on the first day Of
March, 1881, the followin increase Of
salary: The governor will receive
five thousand dollars instead of three
thousand, the judges of the supreme
court would receive Eve thousand in
stead of thirty-two hundred and fif-
ty dollars, and the old district Judges
would receive four thousand dollars
instead of yhirty-two hundred and
fifty, while the district judges who
have been appointed since March 1sf,
1881, would receive but four thous-
and dollars instead of five thousand
dollars.
But there would appear to be room
for reasonable doubt about whether
the inlumbents of the different offices
named could legally draw such in
crease of salary, even If the amend
ment should be adopted. That is to
say the Loyalty of the provision is in
doubt. In the adoption OF a consti-
tutional amendment several things
must concur. In the first place il
must be voted for by twO-thirds OF
all the members elected to each house
Of the general assembly. Second. 1t
must be signed by the governor. or
lacking that, must be by him filed
with the secretary of state without
objection within specified time, and
third, it.must receive the majority of
all the votes cast upon the question
at the election ut which II is submit
ted to the vote of the people. Until
those events have happened and the
vote has been canvassei and the re.
suit declared the proposed amend
ment does not take its place as u part
of tho fundamental law of the state.
In this iust,nce the only one Of the
three events necessary to make an
amendment had hal pened on the first
day of March. 1881. viz: Il had been
adopted by the general assembly. hut
the governor did not sign it, nor did
he file it with. the secretary of state
until tho 14th day of March, 1881, and
it has not yet been voted upon by the
people. 1t all amendment does not
become part ofthe constitution un-
I'll after it has been ratified by the
people. then it cannot possibly be le-
gal for the officers specified. who
were incumbents on the LIST of March,
1881, 10 receive the relief aimed at
by the provision in question, for no
law retrospective in its operations
can be valid-that is prohibited BY
the constitution.
Should the amendment be adopted
and the provision in question be de-
cided to be invalid. that would not in
validate the balance of the amend
ment, so leaving out of consideration
the retro active portion of the amend
ment we advance TO the considers
tion of the effect of the adoption Of
the amendment. The effect would be
just this, Judge Stone wonld receive
thirty-two hundred and fifty dollars
per year for two years, and Judge
Beck the same amount for four ears.
while their associates would be re-
ceiying five thousand dollars, which
in . certain sense would be an ibjus-
tice TO Judges Stone and Beck. On
the other hand seven district judges
would receive but four thousand dol
lars per yesr instead of five Thousand
dollars per year, as they will receive,
should the amendment be defeated.
II voter feels that the district judges
should receive five Thousand dollars
per annum and votes sgainst the
amendment he must do so, know
ing that he is doing an injustice to
the two supreme judges before men,
toned. II 10 true economy TO secure
the best possible talent for our dis
trict judges. and If tho better the sal
ary the better the judge then the
amendment should be defsated. By
so doing the interests of litigants will
BE- best served and tho supreme judges
will have less 10 do. There seems TO be
no good reason why district judges
should not receive Ms large salary
ns supreme judges, for with the same
salary they realize much less. They
have large travelling expenses aud ho-
tel bills to pay when upon their cir
cults. The supreme judges have no
travelling expenses, and are furnished