Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-31
REPROVED BY THE COURT.
He Must Pay Burleigh in Full at the
Rate of $4,000 a Year.
ALSO ALLOWED HIS PERCENTAGE.
General Legislation Does at Times Repeal
Special Acts.
THE COUNTY TO PAY THE ASSISTANTS

Dlstrlot Attorney burlelgn drew nfst
blood yesterday in his mandamus proceed
ings against County Controller Grier to
compel him to pay his salary for May and
June. Judge Ewing yesterday handed
down his decision. in which he
grants every point asked by Mr.. Bur-
leigh, and orders the Controller to
pay the money. He also puts q new con-
struction on the Supreme Court decision in
the Bell case. He SAYS there are conditions
under which general act repeals a special
act without having it specially mentioned.
Controller Grier, however, declares his posi-
tion is right and will test it in the Supreme
Court
Judge Ewing decides that District Attor-
torney Burleigh is entitled TO $4,000 per
year salary under the act of 1881, instead of
81, 600 per year under the act of 1871, as
contended by the Controller; declares that
be should receive credit for the full amount
OF fees earned by the Office, instead of but
two-tnirds, and gives him percentage for
collecting forfeited recognizances.
Ewing Scores the Controller.
After reciting the cause for which the
petition was filed, Judge Ewing says:
"It Is unfortunate that the Controller
should have imagined that this was a mat
ser personal to himself, for from that cause
he has injected into his return much irrel-
evant and Objectionable matter, a part of
which has been stricken out and
part still remains, interviewer with
relevant matter. No one doubts the
rights and duty of the Controller
to refuse to certify to claims which in his
opinion are illegal and to require legal
decision thereon, but it was neither neces-
Eary nor proper for him to set forth the
Iact that he and his clerk had taken an oath
10 perform their duties faithfully. 1t was
improper for him to undertake to reflect
upon the District Attorneys administra-
tion of his Office and to draw comparisons
between him and his predecessor. To the
certain knowledge of the Court each of the
officers referred to conducted the Office of
District Attorney efficiently, and the asser-
tion that the Controller mistakes the law
is no reflection on his integrity and good
faith"
Returning to the legal question the Court
traced the legislation for the District At
torney's Office up to the act of 1871
Entitled to Ten Per Cent of Collections
By the act of 1868 he was to collect for
feited recognizances, and the Court allowed
him a percentage, usually 10 per cent. By
the act Of 1871 the salary was made 81, 900
per year The supplement of 1872 gave him
in addition SO per cent of the tees and COM
missions allowed by court and authorized
by law, thus making it part a salaried and
part feed office. Section 8, article IA, of the
Constitution was quoted, providing that in
all counties of over $50, 600 population the
county officers should be paid by salary,
the fees to be turned into the coun-
ty treasury. Legislation was necessary
TO carry these provisions into effect and the
Rct of 1876 was passed to carry into effect
this section. 1t required all fees to be paid
into the treasury and fixed the District At
torney's salary at So, 900 In counties of over
$50, 600 inhabitants and less than 300, ,O00
The Court is of.opinion that this included
Allegheny county and that the local acts of
1871 and 1872 were repealed so far as the
District Attorneys Office was concerned
The difference between the District Attor-
ney's Office and the Treasurer was that the
Treasurer had been salaried since
1861 and the District Attorneys
office had been both feed and sal
reviewed the question of general act re-
pealing special act and held that in this
instance there was an inconsistency and
specific terms were not needed to repeal the
special act.
Not Against Former Decisions
This conclusion, he said, did not in anv
sense conflict with the decision in the Bell
case. In conclusion he decided the Dis
trict Attorney entitled to $1,000 per year
under the act of 1881, supplement to the
act of 1876.
As to only crediting the office with two
thirds of the fees earned, he ruled that
credit should be given for all the
fees. The Assistant District Attorney
and County Detective are independent
officers and not dependent on the District
Attorney. Their salaries must be paid by
the county. As to forfeited recognizances
the District Attorney was entitled to per-
centage allowed by Court for collecting
thom. Iu conclusion the court held that
this made enough money in the comfy
treasury for the months named to pay the
District Attorney his salary, and ordered a
peremptory mandamus to issue.
Controller Grier said he would appeal the
case TO the Supreme Court: that be could
not pay one officer under the act of 1871 and