The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-10-23
SALARIES UNCHANGED,
The Attorney General SO Decides
Regarding tho Changes by
Assessment
An Opinion OF Interest to AL
County Ofloers In tho
State.
The Question Was Raised by the beard
Of commissioner Of Dssr Ludss
Co0uty.

Alta, nsy General Haskell has Just rem
dorsd an opinion which will be OF interest
to the ofncsrs Of every couuty In tue state.
II 10 In regard to thu standing and salaries
Of officers In counties which. by . change
In the assessed valuation the Elm. shall
change from one class 10 snothsf. The
effect of the decision 10 that no change In
the grade OF . county oan Operate to alter
the salary Of an oficor during the term for
which he WAS elected. The question was
raised by Chairman ]. NJ. Hamilton. Of the
board Of county commissioners Of Deer
Lodge county, who wrote from Anaconda
10 she attorney general on Sept. 70. asking
his opinion on the following proposition:
"At the last election Deer Lodge eounsy
was . county Of the frst Glass. but the
division OF the county reduced u to =
county OF the second class. VIII this re-
duction adsot the salaries OF the present
county officers, and are w entitled to Z
county auditor. Of would the change from
. frst class to q second class dsposs such
ofaceI2" The opinion Of the alto ney gen
oral 10 as follows:
The act Of March 6. 1891, which went
into force and effect jan. ], 1899. classified
counties according to the assessed valua-
ton into three GLASSES. and Fixed the SAL
aries Of the officers of all counties in those
define or determine that the salary Of any
officer in either Of tho three classes should
be changed during the term Of the mourn
bent. sven though tho classification OF the
county might change during that time.
Your question imposes upon rs the duty to
determine whether the salaries Of the
county officers Of Deer Lodge county.
which was 9 county of tbs first class when
they were elected. but now, BY reason Of .
division of the county,, 10 q county OF the
second class. shall draw the salaries Of Off
GERS Of 4 county of the hrst class or of off
cers Of county Of ths second class:
At the general election hold in Novem~
Der, 1892. the present salary law was in full
force and effect. and the status Of the
counties, so far IS the assessed valuation Of
property therein was fixed, and the class to
which each belonged was q matter of
record. and each person who was nomin-
atsd had a tight to presume that II elected,
he would be entitled to receive the salary
thar in force during the term Of Office for
rfhich he had been nominated. C~onsuItinR
The plain declarations Of the constitution,
tho officer elect could depend upon it,
mandatory provisions which prohibit the
legislature from diminishing his salary
after his election. and had q right to pre-
sumo that such declarations In tbA consti-
tuition gave to him Il vested right 10 the
then fixed salary Of his office for tho term
for which he was elected undor the salary
law Of 1891.
The provision Of the constitution (ssc.
81, art. 81 upan which each county official
may depend for the continuation Of his SAL
ary 10 set out in tho following apt language:
Except as otherwise pravided In this con.
atitution. no law shall extend the term Of
"->. -. ~ -
his salary or emolument after his election
or appointment"
In q similar case heard before the su-
preme court of Wyoming at the July term,
1892, whe elm the board Of commissioned
Of Convers county was plaintiff and Burns
constitution provides for fixed and definite
salaries for county officers. asosrtainsd by
law according to the nssessed valuation OF
tho county within tho maximum limits PIC.
scribed by the constitution, and that those
salaries when once fixed and sscsr-
Of the officer. or % of that tims. could not
be increased or diminished after such elec-
tion or during the term Of such Officers 9,
either for tbs frst or any subsequent year
of his official term. His salary Is q fixed
and definite annual salary. which sannos
into office. eitbor duriDR the first year or
any period Of his official term. The Sta
bility and permsnsnce Of the salaries OF
these officers We believe to DO guaranteed
by the constitution. after onse sscersainsd,
secure during the official term from legis-
board OF county comu issioners equallzing
and assessing the taxable =. operty Of the
county"
In Culdin vs. Schuylkill county, the So
preme court Of Pennsylvania. in constituting
section 10. article 8 of thu constitution Of
DAurA.1~.-s - IA.
tend the term Of any public officer. or in
Q ease or diminish his salary or emolument,
after his election or appointment" says:
mo paraphrase Of this language can make
it any palmer. as applicable to the present
case. When the plaintiff was elected TO
the emoluments of that Office were certain
fees prescribed BY law. Al that time the
salary act Of 1876 had NO arpli-
cation to him OF 10 his office.
To give it such application after
part of his term had expired. and thereby
take away bis fees and substitute therefor
a salary less than tbs nGgregats amount OF
tho fees authorized when he accepted the
Office. is to diminish his enoiuments BY
law after his election. and the result ia
precisely the same as 1t wouId have been II
the law had been passed after his election,
A sense OF the manifest Justice. on
the one hand, Of continuing 10 an
officer the compensation prescribed by law
at the time of mis- acceptance Of Office, and
on the other hand. of holding him 10 the
performance Of his official daties for what,
IN an equitable sense. might be rsRardsd
~ an agreed consideration. ~ we'll a. The
inconveniencs OF a transition from the fee
system to that of salaries in tho middle of A
term and year, MAJ we'll have had an in
1uence In moulding this s~sstion."
In Sokuylkill county Va. Conaroy. sheriR.
the supreme court Of Pennsylvania at tho
same term. among other things, SAYS; .Ths
effect Of the thirteenth section of the third
article OF the constitution il 10 hold iaus
passed In pursuance OF section s. article Ii
OF the constitution in absy auce A In ali
suoh officers. in so far AZ their operation
would otherwise be to increase or dimin :sh
office. When il uppsaq. .'": en-. of
respondent IL such an oFno.- =.
does not afirmatively appear in this case.
as it did In Cnldin vs.. County Of sehuvI'
kill, whether q change Of ompensstio
from fees to salary would increase or di-
ninish the officers emolumepts: hnt vbsn
II is proposed to take away the fess IN
which the respondent Was entitled when hs
was elected and substitute 4 snIat v there
foy. the REALTORS should have shown that
the change of tho manner of pnvm.Mt
would not affect tho mount 10 be Received
BY the officer. Ia the absence Of anv owl
dence to the contrary it Ia safe 10 nssnme
that such change would dimipish thu r.
~spondents emoluments. 1t could moi. bv
the express terms OF tho constitution. IN.
crease them"
Under the general statutes and lava NJ
1870. chapter 33. OF the state of M;nncsots.