The morning call., 1893-08-29
THAT JUNE MONEY
City Employees Before the
Supreme Court.
FORrIER COURT DECISIONS.
Argued That the Court rlust Estab-
Iish a Precedent by Reversing
Former Decisions.

Four Supreme Court Justices sat in bank
Yesterday to hear arguments in the matter
of the application of George Lewis for a
writ of mandate to compel Treasurer
Wldber to pay him $50. his salary as
Chief Deputy Registrar for the month of
June last.
1t will be rem embered that the Treas.
urer refused 10 pay she salaries of the
city's employees on the ground that there
was no money In the general fund at the
end of the fiscal year. This arrangement
did not suit the majority, and the case
was submitted TO the consideration of the
Supreme Court, Lewis and Superior Judge
Murphy being the principal actors. 1t was
the formers case that was heard yester-
day.
Ex-Judges l.. ID. McKusick and S. c..
benson appeared on behalf of Lewis,
while the Treasurer was represented b. It.
Z. Van Ness. The points presented for the
plaintiff are based on the claim that SAL
aries fixed by law were preferred claims
under the consolidation act, and therefore
did not come under section Is article ii
of the constitution, which prohibits the
payment of the city's obligations of one
year out of the income of the other. 1t
was argued that the constitution applied
to indebtedness, and not to salaries, which
must be paid or the business of the city
would stop. The current expenses of the
city are required to be paid promptly by
the law for that very reason.
I. c. Van Ness argued on behalf Of tn q
city that the Treasurer did not refuse TO
pay because of any arbitrary power that
he held, but that he had been advised by
his counsel. and under previous decisions
of the Supreme Court of the State, that it
would be highly dangerous for him to do
So Three decisions were quoted in SUD-
port of cOunsePs contention. One was in
the case of the Gas Company VS.. Dunn.
wherein il was held that the constitution
prohibited the payment of any obligation
created IN one year out of the income of
another. And all three decisions held,
therefore. that section IS applied to obliga-
tions OF every kind. The same decisions
had been rendered by the Supreme Court
of Colorado and the United States Su-
preme Court. And 1t was further held
that salary demand came under the head
OF all other demands.
benson made the closing argument on
behalf of Lewis, and arased that 10 hold
that the Board Of Supervisors could pre-
vent the payment of demands fixed by law
would be TO hold that 1t could atwill usurp
the functions of the Legislature.
Justice Harrison here asked benson if.
in his opinion, the general fund terminated
at the end of the fiscal year or was eontinu-
Gus. benson said it was certainly continu-
Gus.
Then how do you apply that section as
OF the constitution ?"
benson said that II was the duty of the
Supervisors. the Auditor and the Treas
urer to see that all demands fixed by law
were paid. Then the authorities should
pass only such other demands as the sur
plus fund at hand would enable them to
meet. No demands in excess of that
should be passed. and the authorities had
n right TO incur them.
Finally the attorneys concerned were
permitted to file their briefs at once and
the court took the matter under advise
ment. Should the decision go against the
petitioners il will be difficult to decide what
can be done in the matter. For, as the gen.
eral fund for the fiscal wear end ng June
80. 1S93 is exhausted and the city is not
allowed to pay the previous years liablIi-
ties out of the present years income, it
follows, therefore, that the only way in
which the city's employees could get their
June salaries would be by an extraordi-
nary tax levy issued for the purpose. and
the question remains. would the Supervi-
sors issue such levy?