Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-17

preme Court of May % In the case of Bell
versus Allegheny county. The burden of
this decision was that general acts for the
State do not repeal special acts unless
specially mentioned in the repeating clause
| OF the general acts. The Controller further
declares District Attorney Burleigh in de-
manding his salary under the act OF 1891
Is setting up mis- opinion in defiance of the
Supreme Court He said: 81 paid Mr..
Burleigh's salary for May. Oa the 23d I
| got the Supreme Court decision and have
been acting on it ever since. This compels
J the Allegheny county officials who are
paid under the act of 1871. It
I is special act for Allegheny county and
| fixes the salary Of the District Attorney at
y, 900 per year. The way these fees are
collected is provided for in the act of 1867,
which accounts for the strange way in which
keep my books. This is the law:
Grier's Bookkeeping Explained.
Section 4-The fees of the Assistant Dis
trict Attorney for said county shall be taxed
and allowed out of the fees as now allowed
by law to the District Attorney of said
county; two-thirds OF all said fees, costs and
allowances in each and every case. action
and proceeding whatsoever, to be taxed for
the use OF the District Attorney, and the re-
naming one-third thereof to be taxed, al
lowed and collected for the separate use and
benefit OF said Assistant District Attorney.
81 am simply following the law. Since
the decision of the Supreme Court I have
not paid any salaries except to Prothono-
tary Bradley and myself We are both
drawing our salaries under the act of 1871.
The general act of the State passed in 1870,
just after the Constitutional Convention, is
almost exactly the same.
''rhe opinion of Judge White, which was
also concurred in by Judge Ewing in the
Goehring case of January term, 1892, throws
dditional light. 1t is as follows:
The salary of the relator Deputy As
sistant Goehring) as deputy is not a general
charge upon the county. It fs to be paid out
any deficiency it must fall upon the District
Attorney, and as this appointment is made
at his request with full knowledge of the
law he cannot complain and does not.
With assistance of a regular deputy the
business Of the office can be expedited and
better transacted, which will, in all proba-
bfl1ty. increase the fees collected, and
especially may increase the amount realized
from forfeited recogniZance, so that in the
end there will be no loss to the county.
Following the Letter Of the Law.
'Tn taking the stand have am simply
following the law, and I believe will be
sustained. There is no use of Mr.. Burleigh
denying it is for the $1,000 salary he is
making the fight. One of the Judges OF
Common Pleas No told me he had been
called into conference on the matter of
paying the District Attorney the full
salary under the act of 1891. Besides that
my attorney, Mr.. Fitzsimmons, has a letter
from Mr.. Burleigh in black and white in
which he offers to give bond to the Con-
troller and his bondsmen to indemnify me
if I pay him his salary Of sc, 900 year. OF
course cannot do this with one and not
with all, so 1 will simply follow the letter
of the law as find it"