Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-08-23

of council proceedings, etc, and which
publication as stated in the bill, was
made on Sundays was consequently illegal.
There were other points and salient rea-
sons why the bill should not be paid. The
signing OF that warrant by the mayor was
simply
RoBBING THE CITY,
and the mayor refused. He was mandam-
used and the district court ruled that the
mayors Office is purely ministerial. Now
the city comptroller refuses 10 sign the
warrants drawn il favor Of the aldermen
for $500 each, as their respective salaries
for the past year, and drawn uadUT the
charter placing the salaries at $500 per
year, and the comptroller being NAH
damused the matter goes before tue same
court which ruled that the mayor is uOI
the municipal executive. The following
is the decision il the comptroller case:
A decision in the case of Alderman
Watt against the city comptroller fot re-
fu5ing to cOuntersiGn an order for pay
ment of salary was given yesterdaT by
Judge Lochren ard filed with the cier1 OF
court. The following are the salient points
given by the Judge:
Without denying the power IL the legtS-
lature 10 have made the charter amend
nent retro active, SO as to cover the stia-
ries CT aldermen for tbs whole of the Ihen
current year, 1t is a rule for the coBstruc-
ton Of statutes, never deviated from by
courts, tdat they shall be construed 50 as
to have L prosp =ctive operation only, ul-
less the language of the statute requires
that the statute be given 4 retroactive Ell
feet. Il is obvious III It the aAeuduent
contains no such language. The most that
can be claimed under the cnarJer amend
meRt is that iG took effect at once. o. It's
passage, and fixed the salary at tba c:,Js
named from that time. Whether ira conn
Gil, which till then, had omitted 10 tx ,h8
rate OF aldermanic sa.arieSfor tpat
year could afterwards dI
1t for lapsed portion of the leur, WITHIN
tire limit OF 800 per year, or MOI, it, Ger
tain that it had no power 20 TX sc al ttt
higher rate. Il is, however. urged ga he
halt of the relator that the fuEcloEs cf
the comptroller IL respect 70 counters gu
ing warrants, like those Of The clerk and
mayor in 81 ming the same IS merely miu-
isterial and that he has 10 discretion TO
refuse to c0untersign warrant ordered
by the city council and signed by the
clerk and mayor, II there be nlouef IL tl.e
fund upon which it is drawn, wharewiJG
to pay it. The clerk Is but sue scribe Of
the council and his signature nttests tho
act OF the council Why the mayor = re-
CURED to sign such orders or warrants Is
not apparent. The provision may have
been copied from charters wh:ch make
the mayor the presiding officer Of the
council, when of course, his elgnatGre
would be further attestation Of the act
of the council. But the com stroller has a
distinct duty to perform as the account
ant auditor and bookkeeper Of tue city
having the custody of its contracts or of
records thereof, We think his functions
are not purely ministerial. While he may
have no right to refuse to coUntersign
warrant or claim which has come regularly
before the council and upon which the
council had the right to act, and did act,
merely because such action
DID NOT HAkMoNIZE
with his judgment, yet the charter pro-
vides (Chap. Ill, Sec. 49, that all claims
and demands against the city shall be
audited and adjusted by the comptroller,
before being allowed by the city council.
The reason of this is sufficiently
obvious, even though the council is not
bound by the auditing and adjustment of
the comptroller. If the council should al
low a claim without such auditing first
being had, and should thereby in the
opinion of the comptroller make mis-
take against the interests Of the city; Or if
the council should go beyond its powers
and order, moneys paid for IA purpose for
which it has 10 authority to appropriate
money; or in excess of q Eplain Limitation
in the charter, the comptroller might
properly refuse TO counte1sign the war
rants.
For instance, if under the
charter as now amended, the council at
the close of an official year, should direct
warrants to DO issued 10 the aldermen for
| $500 each, for their salaries for that year.
We have no DOUBT that II would bo
THE CoMPrRo1LER's DUTY ID REFUSE
to counters;gn suca warrants. The pres
ent case is not different, except that il the
present case the law was so obscure that q
body of laymen, Ike tbs city council,
might honestly, las they doubtless did)
give it the Interpretation which was given
| to it when this warrant was ordered.
Eyeu the city clerk, whose functions in
such matters are purely ministerial, would
be justified i'll refusing to siga a warrant
| where The council had no power under the
charter to order the money paid. The mo-
ZION for pere.nptory writ of mandamus
is denied and the proceeding dismissed
The case viii be appealed to the higher
court, where it doubtless viii receive a
|