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

son for advertising, or Official publication
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 TIE 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 TO SIGN the
warrants drawn III favor of the aldermen
for $500 each, as their respective salaries
for the past year, and drawn under the
charter placing the salaries at $500 per
year, and the comptroller being mai
damQsed the matter goes before tue same
court which ruled that the mayor is uOG
the municipal executive. The following
is the decision il the comptroller case:
decision in the case of Alderman
Watt against the city comptroller for re-
fusing to cOuntersign an order for pay
ment of salary was given YESTERDAY by
Judge Lochren and filed with the cierh OF
court. The following are the salient points
given by tho Judge:
Without denying the power IL the legjS-
lature to have made the charter amend
nent retro active, so as tC cover the SAIa-
ries OF aldermen for tbs whole of the Then
current year, it is a rule for the c0Dstruc-
ton of statutes, never deviated from ny
courts, that they shall be construed SO as
to have 4 prosp =ctive operation only, ma
less the language Of the statute requires
that the statute be given retroactive Ell
feet. Il is obvious III It the amendment
contains no such language. The most that
can be claimed under the cnar5er amend
ment is that il took effect al once. o. It's
passage, and fixed the salary al tba cate
named from that time. Whether tCe conn
Gil, which till then, had omitted 10 tx ihB
rate OF aldermanic ea.arissfor tpat
year could afterwards tx
1t for Iapsed portion of the year, WITHIN
tire limit of 800 per year, or nos, it S. Ger
tain that it had no power 10 tix it IL tdt
higher rate. Il is, however, urged Oh he
halt of the relator that the functions cf
the comptroller in respect 70 countersiku-
ing warrants, like those Of The clerk aud
mayor in ST ming the same IS merely min
isterial and that be has 30 discretion TO
refuse to countersign warrant ordered
by the city council and signed by the
fund upon which it is drawn, vharewiJG
to pay IT, The clerk is but sue scribe OF
the council and his signature attests the
act OF the council Why the mayor Is re-
CURED to sign such orders Or warrants is
not apparent. The provision may have
been copied from charters which make
the mayor the presiding officer of the
council, when of course, his signature
would be further attestagion Of the act
of the council. But the com ;'troller has a
distinct duty to perform as the account
ant auditor and bookkeeper of the 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 a
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 HAhMoNIzE
with his judgment, yet the charter pro-
vides (Chap. Ill, Sec. 1S) that all claims
and demands against the city shall be
audited and adjusted by the comptroller,
before being allowed by the city @ouncil.
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 com ptroler make a mis-
take against the interests of the city; or if
the council should go beyond its powers
and order, moneys paid for Il purpose for
which it has 10 authority to appropriate
money; or in excess of Iplain Limitation
in the charter, the mptrolier 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 It would be
THE CoMPrRoLLER's DUTY To REFUSE
to counters;gn suca warrants. The pres
EFT case is not different, except that in the
present case the law was so obscure that
body of laymen, like lbs city council,
might honestly, las they doubtless did)
give it the Interpretation which was given
to it when this warrant was ordered.
Even the city clerk, whose functions in
such matters are purely ministerial, would
be justified i'll refusing to sign a warrant
where the council had no power under the
charter to order the money paid. The mo-
| 5ion for peregn ptory writ of mandamus
is denied and the proceeding dismissed
The case Will be appealed to the higher
court, where it doubtless will receive a
different decision.