The record-union., 1893-05-10
COLD DAY FOR DEPUTIES.
They Receive Another Blow From the
Supreme Court,
Supervisors Cannot Appoint Deputy
County Officials Not Other
wise Provided For.

Assistant District Attorney Welch of
Fresno County was on July 3, 1891, re-
fused warrant on the County Treasury
for his salary, in the sum of $500, for the
preceding month. and brought suit
against Auditor Bramlet therefor by
petitioning the Superior Court to issue a
writ of mandate requiring the Auditor to
draw the warrant. Tho writ was denied
by the court, and Welch appealed the case
to the Supreme Court, which yesterday
filed its decision affirming the judgment
of the lower court.
According to the terms of the County
Government Act of 1888, the County of
Fresno became county of the twenty
sixth class, and remained there until 1891.
In the statutes of 1886, Section ISS of the
County Government Act provided that
! the District Attorney of that class of
counties shall receive a salary of 50, 500
| per annum, and added that it should ''be
/ in full compensation for all services of
every kind and description rendered by
/ the otncerS therein named. either as Off
/ GERS, or eX oIicio officers, their deputies
| and their assistants; and all deputies en-
/ ployed shall be paid by their principles
out of their salaries hereinbetore pro-
| vided."
! Under the classification of counties in
/ 1891, Fresno County was advanced to the
eighth class. The salary remained the
same for District Attorney, but the Legis-
lature provided that he might appoint
three deputies, whose salaries should be
paid by the comfy.
"Ghere is no difference in principle"
says the court, "between a statute author
lzing the Board of Supervisors to permit
county officer TO appoint a deputy
( whose salary shall be charge upon the
! County Treasurer, and one directly au-
! thoriZing such officer himself to appoint
| a deputy, whose salary shall be paid by
the county. The result in either case is
/ TO Increase the compensation of the
officer beyond the amount at which it
was fixed at the time of his election, and
at the commencement of his term of
office. If there is any difference in
| principle between the two statutes, the
stronger argument is in favor of the one
which would subject such appointment
to the arbitrament of the legislative body
of the county, rather than to leave it to
/ the will OF the officer himself to deter
mine whether his salary should be in
/ creased"
1t was argued that the Legislature
could not, either by direct enactment or
/ by authorizing the Boards of Supervisors
/ to so order, impose upon county treas
ury the payment of the salary of any
deputy OF county officer elected while
/ the Act of 1888 remained in force. The
court says:
ITO construe Article XI. of the Consti-
tuition so that a County Clerk, Auditor or
/ District Attorneys salary could not be
/ increased during his term of Office, but
that an Act of the Legislature wOuldlbe
valid which provided that all his depu-
! ties-men whom he was bound TO en-
ploy and bound to pay in the absence of
such an Act-should be paid by the
Il Il J.
the officials salary, would be to allow
that 10 be done indirectly which could
not be done directly, and would be estab-
fishing a medium for the practice of the
very abuses which the constitutional pro-
vision was inserted to destroy.
The County Government Act of 1891
purports to be applicable to all the coun-
ties of the State. 1t has been held that
the law liking the salaries of the county
! officers in certain class is general law.
/ for the reason that it applies only to
counties of that class.
/ Nv Whenever the Legislature attempts to
enact a law for one or more of the counties
OF the State upon subjects which it is di-
rected to provide for by general laws, or
which are to form part of a uniform sys-
/ tenn for the whole State, whether such
counties are designated by name or by
| reference to a class into which they have
J been placed Tor other subjects of legisla-
/ tlolli II li4LAHSeS upon lue PROVISIONS or
[ the constitution relative to class legisia-
ton.
1--WE must take judicial knowledge that
there is only one county in the State
whose population places it in the eighth
class, and if an Act is passed by the Leg
islature that IS applicable TO only one
county IN the State, it does not cease to
be local Act by reason OF the fact that it
purports TO be applicable to a class of
counties which the Legislature is not
authorized to create for the purpose of
such legislation and of which that county
/ contributes the only member. The judg-
ment of the lower court is affirmed