The record-union., 1892-02-25
JUBILAN4 DEPUTIES.
A Possibility That the Supreme Court
viii Reverse Itself.
a Rehearing Granted In the Marin
County Case-They VIII Draw
Their Salaries Anyhow.

There is joy among the extra deputies
employed in the various county offices at
the Courthouse.
The occasion of this is the action OF the
Supreme Court in granting a rehearing
in the case Of Dougherty VS.. Treasurer
Austin of Marin County. a decision
was rendered in this case last month, de-
claring that Section 2l6 of the Statutes of
1891, amending the County Government
Act so as to authorize the various Boards
of Supervisors to permit County Clerks
and other county officers to employ addi-
tlonal deputies, is unconstitutional and
void. The counties affected by the de-
cision are: Almeda, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Tulare. Humboldt, Santa Cruz,
Butte, Nevada, Napa, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara, Placer, Colusa, Orange,
Marin, Siskiyou, Shasta, Amador, Ven
/ tura, Stanislaus, Tehama, Kern, Yuba,
/ FL Dorado, Calaveras, MERGED. San Be-
nito, Del Norte and Mono.
! Dougherty was a deputy under County
Clerk Bonneau OF Marin, and his appoint
menU had been authorized by the Board
| of Supervisors in excess OF the usual
number OF deputies, but in accordance
| with the new section above quoted.
! Treasurer Austin refused to pay Dough
erty'S salary on the ground that virtually
/ he would be compelled to pay Bonneau
an increase Of compensation in violation
/ OF the state Constitution.
The Supreme Court decided that Aus
! tin was correct in his claim; that Bon
neau was elected TO serve in a certain
capacity, and if he could not fulfill the
conditions made he had the privilege OF
resigning. The opinion was written by
Justice Garoutte, and concurred in by
Justices De Haven, ShaTpstein and Har-
rison. Chief Justice Beatty wrote a sep
arate cOncurring opinion, and justices
! Paterson and Mcfarland diSSented.
The situation of the local extra depu-
| ties was quite similar to that occupied by
| Dougherty. They had been appointed
under the sanction Of the Board of Super
visors and were drawing pay from the
county, and not from the allowances OF
the various county officers for whom
they worked. Although they had not
! been refused their salaries, their cases
I were before the supreme Court for dis
posal. T.. y. Burr brought an injunc-
ton suit TO prevent the extra deputies
here from drawing their salaries, but the
case was decided against him in the Supe-
! rior Court. He then took the case to the
Supreme Court, where it now awaits a
decision.
AT the time this decision was rendered
there was CONSERVATION among the extra
deputies, for they realized that their cases
would rest on the same points. But their
attorneys gave them hope, saying that
there We're other points to be submitted
on which the Supreme Court might grant
a rehearing. The only way to get at the
case was to strive for a rehearing Of the
Marin County case, as the Sacramento
case had not been decided vet, and il
nothing was done it would be decided
summarily-the Supreme Court would
simply refer the litigants for authority tc
the Marin County case. The clerks and
their attorneys got together and assisted
the Marin County deputy all they could
The same was done in several other
counties which We're similarly affected
The extra men are naturally jubilant
over the recent turn Of affairs. The fact
that the Supreme Court was by no means
unit on the former decision gives them
hope that that august body will, after the
new legal points are submitted, reverse
that decision. At any rate they viii con
tinue to draw their salaries until another
decision is rendered.