Arizona weekly enterprise., 1889-04-13
JUDGE sr1LwELL,s OPINION.
The COuuty's Additional Compensation to
 the District Judges not Sanctioned by
ombstons Prospector. 1

fEoSpeClol-J The following opinion was filed with the Board of Supervisors yesterday by 1, the District Attorney and will explain itself: OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
 CoCHIsE COUNTY, A. T.,
 March 15, 1889. To the Honorable the Board of Super visors of Cochise County, Arizona.
 GENTLEMEN-At a recent meeting of your honorable body I was requested to state to you in writing my opinion in regard to authority of the board of supervisors to pay to the district judge of this judicial district five hun dred dollars per annum for holding district court in this county.
 The district judges Gudges Of su- preme courD each receive a compensa- ton from the United States govern ment of 5000 per annum.
 Section 1874, Revised Statutes of the United States, authorizes them to "hold court within their respective district in the counties wherein, by the laws of the territory, courts have been or may be established. * But the expense of holding such courts shall be paid by the territory or by the counties in which the courts are held, and the United States shall in no case be chargeable herewith"
 The laws of Congress fixing the compensation to be paid by the United States contemplate that the officer so paid shall hold court in all counties in his district wherein, by the laws of the territory, courts are or may be established.
 The provisions of the section above quoted requiring the expense of such. court to be paid by the territory or county, refers to expenses of court room, attendance and fees of sherifis, witnesses, jurors, all of which are fully provided for and made legal charge against the county wherein such court is held.
 I find no authority for the board of supervisors to fix the compensation of any officers except county, precinct and election officers, and then only in cases where they are not otherwise l paid (Par 397 sub div. IT Rev. St. of Arizona), and 1t can not be claimed that district judge is county officer, and that he is not otherwise paid as he not only receives 5000 from the United States but also $500 per an mum from the territory as an extra compensation hence, we have no act of the territorial Legislature authoriz- ing the payment to district judge ol any amount from county funds for holding a district court in a county wherein, by the laws of the territory courts may be held.
 To further establish the fact that boards of supervisors should not make additional compensation from the funds of the county to officials whose compensation is fixed by law, unless upon the plainest authority, we have but to refer to Section l795 Revised Statutes of the United States, whicE reads as follows "No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay ol emoluments are fixed by law or regu lations, shall receive any additiona pay, extra allowance or compensation in any form whatever, for the disbucse ment of public moneys, or for an. other service or duty whatever, unles the same is authorized by law, and th' appropriation therefor explicitly state that is for such additional pay, extr' allowance or compensation" The act of February s, 1875 (p. 40C Comp Laws of Arizona, 1S774, con forms to the language of Section 1795 just quoted, and allows to each justic } of the supreme court "the sum c $500 per annum as additional com pensation to salary now provided b law, and the same shall be paid qual l terly upon the warrant of the audito of the treasury out of any money i the treasury not otherwise appropr ated."
 This amount of $500 is being res , ularly paid to each of the judges ( the supreme court, and I am of tn opinion that they are entitled, unde the present laws, to no other comper sation from a county for performin duties required of them by acts { Congress.
 ] W. H. STILwELL, 2 District Attorney Cochise Go.