Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-12-20


ent terms. Judge Stowe yesterday decided
that the incumbents, by virtue of the in
crease of population, were entitled to the
same pay as in Philadelphia This decision
will doubtless stand though an appeal will
be taken to the Supreme Court The fol.
lowing shows the increase in the annual sal
ary Of each person affected:
Sheriff McCleary from. ... 900 to sI5ooC
Treasurer Bell fron............ 5000 to 10 o9t
Prothonotary Bradley FROM. 5000 to 10 cox
Recorder Won Bonhorst FROM. g. 900 to TO- 00t
County Commissioners from. $500 to 5,00(
Controller GI1er from. ....... 4 0O0 to 5000
Clerk of Courts McGunnigle
rom..-....-.-..- .-..--........ 45O0 to 6,OW
Register Conner from. $500 to 5000
Controller Grier refused to take the salary
TO which he is entitled under the decision
viz, $1,000 per annum-and demanded pay
ment under the former rate, S4, 600 per
annum. He also announced that he would
take an appeal from the decision before the
highest tribunal in the State.
Loose Legislation Responsible.
'f0f course there will be a wave of popu-
lar indignation, said prominent attorney,
''but it should be directed at the proper
point. The court has merely enforced the
law, and there are few persons who would
not have done exactly as the county officials
affected. The entire trouble is due to the
loose work of the State Legislature. 1t is
this kind of craftsmanship which insult be
corrected.
The following is the text of Judge
Stoves opiuion:
The statement filed in the case lleges tnat
john A. Bell, the plaintiff was duly elected
TNrlna Sr1r. fNTf ffa Nv A
1899, and was duly qualified and commissioned
and entered upon the discharge OF his duties
in january, 1891, and has since acted as such
oftlcer and performed the duties devolving
upon him as such. That by the eleventh de-
cennial census and by the enumeration of
the population of the county taken pursuant
thereto, in the year 1890, and prior to the
election of the said plaintiff the population
of the county was 81. .95s. That on the first
Monday Of April, July and October, 1891, he
made calm on the Controller for the allow
ance OF his salary then due, which allowance
was refused, and he demanded of the proper
officers warrant for his salary for the
proper quarter, and the warrant and pay
meut was refused Wherefore the plaintiff
says there is due and owing to him the sum
OF s, 800 being the salary for the first three
quarters OF the year 1891, pursuant to the act
OF March 81, 1886, and its supplements. To
this statement the county OF Allegheny by
its solicitor has demurred, and asks for the
judgment of the Court The cause was
argued by counsel of plaintiff and also by
the solicitor or defendant, and by permission
of the Court written argument was sub
mlttec by counsel for the Controller oppos-
ing the claim of the claimant. The question
now presented Is whether the plaintiff is en-
titled under the law to a salary of sl0,0C6 in
stead or 5000, the amount payable under the
act OF 1856.
Review of the Salary Acts.
The Court then enters into an exhaustive
review of the salary acts of 1876, 1870, 1881,
and the supplemental of 1888 The act, the
Court says of March 81, 1876, entitled can
act 10 carry into effect section 5 of article
of the Constitution" declares in section IL,
viz:
In all counties or cities co-extensive with
the counties containing over 300, 600 inhabit-
ants. the annual salaries of county officers
shall be follows: District Attorney sl5-
600: three Assistant District Attorneys, first
assistant, $1,000: second, S5 600; third, So 600:
Sheriff, $4,000; Coroner, 81, 900: Deputy Coro-
ner 81, 5O5: Prothonotary, $4,000; Clerk of
Courts, $4,000; Recorder, $4,000; Register.
$40 600; Treasurer, $4,000; Commissioners,
$1,000; Controller, $1,000. On May II, 1881,
another act was passed by the Legislature
amending the act of 1886 so that it shall read
q follows:
The annual salaries of all county officers
in counties which shall have less than 500 600
and more than 100000 shall be as follows:
District Attorney, 5000, and all sums col
lected by him on forfeited recognizances
Assistant District Attorney, 5000; Sheriff
$500; Coroner, 81 500: Prothonotary,
5000; Clerk of Courts, 81, 5OO Register. 81 600;
Treasurer, 5000: Recorder, 5000; County
Controller, 81 0O0 Section 8 repealed all acts
inconsistent with this act Suggestions
raised as to this act being unconstitutional
is immaterial, as it has been repealed bv the
act of June, 1883. The Court then quotes
the act of 1888 at length showing the
salaries of the officers as follows: District
Attorney, $40 000 three assistants at S. 600
$1,000 and $1,000 each: Sheriff, SIS 900; Coroner
S5 900; Deputy Coroner. 81 500; Prothonotarv,
$4,000; Register. 5000; Treasurer, $4,000:
Commissioners, S. 0O0: Controller SIS OO0
The question is whether the plaintiff is
entitled to have the annual sum of $4,000
during his term of office as salary Does the
act Of 1888 apply to this county? 1t not an
peGllng to have had 500 900 inhabitants in
1855 when the act was passed. The answer
TO this is given by the Supreme Court, which
has said:
Only the Proper Population Required.
The act is general in its terms. 1t is de- i
signed to apply 10 counties containing the
requisite population, and also to those
which might hereafter acquire it. When
ever an effort is made to apply this act to
any particular county, the fact to be ascer-
tanned is whether the county contains suffi-
cient populations at the time the officer en-
tered upon the duties of his office What
ever the population may have been pre-
viously, or what it may thereafter become.
does not control the case.
The Supreme Court has also held that for |
the purpose of classification OF counties /
under the salary act the United States
census Is the sole test Of population. Not |
withstanding the argument presented by |
the Controller can discover nothing in the |
several statutes involved which cast a doubt |
uDOn the constitutionality of the act of /
lsS5. above recited. The facts as presented /
by the pleadings, show that the plaintiff |
falls clearly within its provisions, and what
ever my own individual opinion may be as |
TO the propiiety OF the legislation allowing
such salaries rs are fixed by this for the
performance OF the duties devOlying uDon |
the several officers al therein named it is nv
plain duty TO enforce the law as / find it to |
be
If the Legislature in the exercise of its /
constitutional powers sees fit to make a sal /
airy which the public may consider unduly
large or out OF all reasonable proportion to /
the duties and responsibilities aDpertaining
to an office, the Legislature alone can afford |
q remedy. Any attempt on the part of the
court 10 thwarJ the plain puf'pose of a valid |
act of Assembly would not only be q palpa-
bic violation OF their Judicial duties, and an
ineXcusabiC act OF nsurpation properly pun
lshable ny Impeachment As then am of /
opinion that the act of Assembly of March
81, ls3f, Us amended bV the act of lsS3 Is con-
stItUtional. and therefore the law is aDplica-
bic TO the county, and as that act directs
that the County Treasurer shall be paid the
full amount o. the salary allowed him by
the act, to Wit, $4,000 per annum, PAYABLE /
quarterly, 1t is our duty TO enter Judgment
for the amount claimed by the plaintiff for
the payment of three quarters salary sued
for in this action, to wit, s., 500 and it is now
ordered shat Judgment be entered in his
tavor against the county of Allegheny for
s., 800 with costs.
Carnegie Boosts Homestead Music.
On Mr.. Carnegie's recent visit to Home
stead, he was serenaded at his hotel bv the
X. of G. L. Band, of that place. He was so