Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1888-12-21
OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON TER.
OLYMPIA, FRIDAY EVENING, DEC. q, 1855.
That Question of Salary.

The following letter of Attorney sa
;encral Metcalfe, relating to the ques- - ..
ion of law on which the Territorial n
auditor refused to issue warrants Tor y,
lie 5000 per annum salary Of the Fen l.
Tertiary Commissioners, is so explicit
is to require no explanation or COM
mcnt /
SEATTLE, W. T., Oct. ID, 1883.
SrR:-Your favor Of the 4th inst.
enclosing voucher no. 2o2 for salary,
etc. or one of the Commissioners,
was duly received, and beg leave to
submit my opinion upon the matters {
therein propo. cd. ,
Section L. OF the act, entitled AN ,
act to provide for the further constrnc-
ton OF pententiary buildingsat Walla
WALL; for purchase OF necessary
plant for the manufacture oil gram
sacks thereat for heating the same;
for the maintenance OF prisoners
therein confined; to cover Deficiencies
for the past expenditures made on &C
count of the same, and appropriatlng
money therefore," fixes tie considera-
ton for services rendered by the Com
missiouers at "an annual salary OF
100000 each and his actual and neces- |
sary trdreling expenses in attending the
meetings Of the Board, and no more"
and further provides how said salary
shall be paid. Section II, as if the
trainers of said act, were doubtful that
the words and no moe" in Section
IL were not 81 Tee ltly emphatic,
s,ys: "No Commissioner shall, as
such, directly or indi- ectly, receive
any pay, or emolument for the services,
except as prorided in Sec. 12 Of his
act"
This act was approved and took
effect Feb. LIST, 1888.
Section 8 OF the &C entitled, An
act to govern the officers of the Terri
torial Penitentiary, and to provide for
their compensation fires the annual
salarv of leach Commissioner (aO
three dollars per day during the time
OF the session OF the Board OF Com
missioners, and his actual and neces-
SdFy uuCcttHy expenses " "t""''"0 ''e
meetings of said Board"
This act was approved and took ct
feet Feb. I'd, 1888.
The provisions of these acts relat-
ing to the compensation of the Com
missioners, are to my mind utterly ire
concilable. The terms of the first, in
plain words, afe that each Commits
sioner shall receive annually salary
of $4,000, and erpenses and no more"
In addition to the clear and unmistak-
able language used in Section IL, the
Legislature seems to have emphasized
its intention by the terms of Section
II, which provides as follows: "No
Commissioner shall, as such, directly
or indirectly receive any pay or emolu-
ment for his services except as pro-
vided in Section IL of this act, etc"
Reading then Sections IL and II of
the act of Feb. LIST, 1883, together will
le.ve no doubt upon the mind as to
the compensation intended to be al
lowed the Commissioners for services,
ETC., under that act.
Upon the following day the Legisla-
ture seems to have turned sommer-
sault over this question and passed
the act OF Feb. I'd, 1888, supra.
Section 8 of the act provides as fol-
lows: "The annual salaries of the
Board of Penitentiary Commissioners,
physicians, warden, assistant warden,
clerk, and all overseers and guarde
shall be as follows:
&C Each r,~,:.a:one~ &l,r>> ILL.,. 80
per day, during the time of the session
of the Board of Commissioners, and
his actual and necessary trreling er
penses of attending the meetings of said
Board, ETC." and continues to fix al
salaries OF the officers connected there
with, and also the time when they
shall be paid. The provisions Of this
section are undeniably repugnant tc
the provisions Of section IL and II o.
the former act, and repeal the same by
Implications, as far as they relate te
the questions of salary.
If it is claimed that the provisions
Of Section 2 Of Feb. I'd, 1888, increas
ed the salary, by a parity Of reasoning
the expenses of travelling, ETC., are t
be paid twice. This is plainly not thu
intention.
The terms Of the Sections above re
ferred to in both acts, provide for tn,
same thing fully and completely, ant
cannot etand togeti r. The provis
ions mentioned in the first, are impli
edly repealed by the terms of the sec
ond, and the latter must prevail.
Between two inconsistent and II
reconcilable acts or sections, the last il
time or position prevails"
Sedgwick Con. Stat. and Const. Law
End Ed, P. 100, note and cases cited
If in any particular it is impossi
bic for both statutes TO remain in force
or if in other words, to continue an,
position of the prior statue in force vii
destroy any portion of the act of 1885
it must be held that, to that extent tn
prior statue is not in force, notwith
standing the declaration of Section
4 that it shall remain in force"
Pennsylvania Co. Dunlap, Ii N. E
Rep. p. 4O5.
The general rule on the subject o
repeats by implication, often recog
mixed and acted upon in our decisions
is that where new statute covers tn
whole subject-matter of an old one
adds new offences, or prescribes diff
~ierent penalties, for those enumerated
., the old law, then the older statute il
repealed by implication"
State ex rel. Hudspeth v. Cooper e
=. Vol. Ii N. E. Rep. p S26 and case
ted.
A statute may be repealed by i'm
.ication as well as direct terms; ant
is we'll settled, that where a subse
4. lent act is repugnant to prior one
sae last operates without any repeal
zig clause, as repeal of the first;
g :. If we apply this rule O
instruction to the two acts in ques
lion, the case is closed. They boil
provide for the salary of the Distric
-.ttorney, and were evidently intend
|. in both cases to fix its limit, and
a. the amounts designated are differ
s.,t, the last act must be considered
~ The extent of the difference, as sub
ituted for the first"
Pierpont v. Crouch, Cal. p. 0 31(
nd 81, also.
Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 CAL, p. 81
and BIT; also
Scofield V. White, 7 Cal, p. 400.
Matter Of Estate Of Wixon, IS Cal
J.. 1924.
Chrietvv n & Sacramento ~ u