The record-union., 1891-01-16
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS.
The Legislators Must Be Paid Last
Weeks Salary in Full.

Mileage Must Be Computed from the
Residence and Not the County
Seat-Terns of Notaries.
Attorney General Hart rendered three
opinions yesterday, two of which will be
of special interest to the members of the
Legislature and others.
The first one refers to the statesmen's
salaries of last week, and is as follows:
Hon. ID. p. Cplgon, State Controller = MY
DEAR SIR: In answer to your communication
as to whether or not members of the present
Legislature should draw the full pay claimed
by them, Notwithstanding the fact that they
adjourned on Thursday the Sth inst until
Monday, the 18th, on which day they recon-
yened, will say that Section ID Article ", ofthe
Constitution provides: Neither House shall
without the consent of the other, adjourn for
more than three days, nor to any place other
than that in which they may be sitting. Nor
shall the members of either House draw paw
Tor any recess or adjournment for longer
time than three days."
The supreme Court, in the case of Robinson
VS.. Dunn, held that a legislative day is
twenty-four hours. From this consider and
my conclusion is, that day when applied to
legislative bodies means twenty-four hours
the time between midnight of the preceding
day and midnight of the day of closing II is
plain that the Senate was in session on Thurs
day, the Sth, so that day cannot be counted
as an adjourned day; they were in session on
the 18th, and that day should not be counted:
they were not in session on the 9th, which is
one day, or the 10th, two days, or the / 1th
making three days, and as they are entitled to
| receive pay for a recess of three days, they
would be entitled to pay for the 9th 10th
and 18th, and the adjournment, therefore,
/ NOT farr Al,... fI.,, H. ~
fore conclude that they are entitled 10 their
warrants as claimed. Very respectfully.
w. II. III. HART, Attorney General.
MILEAGE QUESTION.
The second opinion decides the ques-
ton as to whether or not the mileage of
the Senators and Assemblymcn shall be
computed from the county seats of their
respective counties, or from their resi-
dence in the county. 1t is as follows:
To the Honorable Speakea. and Members of the
assembly Of the State Of Culif01Tia-GENTI
MEN: l am in receipt of your communion
| ton asking me as to whether or not the law
contemplates the payment of mileage to men,
| bers of the Assembly from the county seats of
! the respective counties where they reside, or
| from the locality of their residence
In reply will say, Section 266 of the Politi-
| cal Code provides as follows: "Members of the
Legislature shall receive eight (SS) dollars per
| day, payable weekly, during the session of the
| Legislature, and ten cents per mile for each
| mile of travel to and from their residences
| ana the place OF nOlulnp the session.
1t is quite evident from the foregoing sec
tion that a member of the Assembly is en-
| titled to mileage from his house tresidencel to
sacramento, the place of the session of the
| legislature; and that the distance will be
! governed and measured from his residence by
] the ordinary and most expeditions route to
the State Capital, and that the county seat of
the county in which the member resides cuts
no figure and cannot be considered in ascer-
| tanning the mileage to be allowed and paid
| under said section. Very respectfully
| w. II. II. HART, Attorney-G General
TERMS OF NoTARIEs.
General Hart also gave an opinion to
Governor Markham, who asked whether
or not Notaries Public appointed by the
| Governor prior to the amendment to Sec
| ton 79l of the Political Code, approved
March 19, 1889 Statutes of 1889, p. SD,
hold office for two years from the date of
| their commissions, or whether or not
their term of office is extended by the
provisions of the section as amended as
aforesaid, to the term of four years from
and after the date of their commissions.
After citing Sections 793 and 79i of the
| Political Code, Mr.. Hart concludes his
opinion as follows:
The repeal of Section 793 of the Political
| Code by the provisions of the Act of March
| 10, 1889, did not affect the terms of Notaries
| Qncumbents) appointed under Section 791 of
the Political Code as it existed prior to the
amendment of March 10, 1889. The Legisla-
ture could have extended the terms of Nota-
ries appointed priorto that Act. but ntorder
to do SOFT would have been necessary f357 the
amendment to have expressed that intention
in clear terms; for an Act of the Legislature
in all cases, SO far as it pertains to officers is
prospective and not retrospective, and will be
SO construed, unless the Act itself by it's ex-
press terms, declares that it shall be retro
spectiye.
In looking at the Act of March 10. 1889. il
is quite evident that Section of that Act
which fixed the terms of Notaries Public ct
four years was intended to apply to Notaries
Public to be appointed under the provisions of
Section 791 of the Political Code as then
amended, and that thereafter the term of four
years was simply intended to apply prospect
lively to the Notaries thereafter appointed
without respect as to what had occurred be-
fore 1t may be suggested that the repeal of
Section 793 under this construction would
have the effect OF abolishing the office of all
Notaries Public appointed previously to the
amendment of March 19, 1889. Such is not
the case, because the Act does not so declare;
and, as | have previously said, the Office of
Notaries was not abolished, and Section 79l
| as it existed before the amendment of March
| 10, 1889, was not repealed; therefore, the
Section 793 0the two-year terIn) as to future
! appointments, but the then incumbents would
not be affected by that repeal, because their
commissions had already been issued and
! were in force, the term having been fixed and
| the Act of March 10, l $50, not having by ex-
press terms heightened or shortened their
term or commissions, their term was intact
| My opinion, therefore, is that all Notaries Pub
| lie appointed previous to the Act of March g.
| 1853, were not aIecUeu Dy the second section OF
| that Act, and their term OF office would con-
tinue for the term of two years from and after
| the date of their commissions; and that upon
| the ex piration of their commissions two years.
| their term would cease and be at an end, and
| the Act of March 10, 1889, did not continue
| them in Office or.lengthen their term.
! Therefore conclude that the Act of March
! 10, 1889, was intended to operate prospect
| lively and not retrospectively.
! Lam aware that this opinion does not agree
with the opinion of my predecessor and
| have e1deavored, so far as possible, to concur
with him to the effect that the term of Nota-
ries Public appointed previous to the Act of
/ March 10. 1883, is extended four years from
the date of the commission, on the theory
that the Legislature has the power to lengthen
the term of Office of an incumbent, but i can
not do so, as such a conclusion is against the
weight of authority. admit that the Legis-
ture has the power to lengthen n term, butt
cannot find by construction or implication
that they have declared in the Act OF March
10, 1889, that the term of Notaries preyi-
ously appointed was SO heightened, or IN
| tended to be SO heightened, and therefore the
| conclusion must be that said statute was only
intended to operate prospectiveiy and not
retrospectiveiy.
| MIlJIJ I2ITI,T Tf, A mJCMcy