The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-12-05

An important decision was handed down
| Tuesday morning by the supreme court
| in the case OF the state ex rel the board
| Of county commissioners VS.. Abram c.
Boice from Benton county, in which the
cOnsdtutonality of the fee and salary law
, was attacked The decision holds that the
law is unconstitutional. and, therefore, void
in so far as it re,ates to county treasurers.
| Judge Hackney handed down the opinion
and in it he says:
''Abram Boice was elected treasurer of
Benton county in the year 1892, and after
assuming the duties Of that Office it was
alleged he received in fees collected from
| persons for services performed as such Of
! fcer the sum OF money which he withheld
| from the treasurer's fund, established by
| the act Of March g. 1891 (acts 1891, p. 324,
| sec. 1850. 1t was further alleged that ne
| appropriated said sum to his own use as
a part of the compensation Of his office
and denied the right Of said county to
assert or maintain any interest therein.
! The re.atOr sued upon the bond of the
| treasurer for the recovery of the sum TO
| the use Of the 'treasurer's fund and to
| the complaint the lower court sustained
| the demurrer of the appe,lees. In support
|
Of March g. 1891, s void o. 32i, sec. 125).
1t was further allowing inhibitiOns o. the
| state constitution:
4" The general assembly shall not pass
! local or special avs in any of the follow
ing enumerated cases: Q0) Regulating the
| election Of county and township officers
J and their compensati1ns; OBJ IN relation
/ to the fees and salaries, except that the
! lava may be so made as TO grade the
| compensation Of officers in proportion TO
! the population and the necessary service
| required Also that in al cases enumer-
] ated in the preceding section, and IN all
| other cases where a genera law can De
| made applicable, all law shall be made
| general and Of uniform operation through
| out the state.
THE character. scope AMI objects o. the
! act in question were fully considered by
| us in the case of Henderson VS.. the state,
| etc. Q36 Ind.), and it is unnecessary TO
| state them. The act sought TO establish
| a system Of fees and salaries for numer-
| Gus classes Of offices and officers, among
| which was that of county treaSurers. For
that class Of officers salaries were pro-
| vided as to all the counties Of the state,
| emitting Shelby county, as 10 which cOun-
| ~ no compensation by way of fees or
salary was provided. Thus, it Is insisted,
| with other propositions, that the act be-
| came local and lacked uniformity of opera
| ton throughout the state with reference to
| the system Of salaries contemplated and
| adopted by it. In the state ex rel Nc
| Coy VS.. KrOst (at the present term) we
| held that the act should be considered pre-
| senting a system Of fees apart from the
| systems Of salaries also provided, and we
now add that, either system must now
| stand, and isl constitutional validity be
| determined Independently Of the ocher.
| The system of salaries Instituted and
| promulgated tly the act was manifeStly
| intended to bu general as to the class of
| public officials which the appellee Boice,
1,s1-r 4I,p fhlar
| designed 10 apply that system TO some Of
| the counties of the state. and some other
| system or different rule to another or
| some other county. This is made TO APP
| pear clearly from the provisions Of the act,
which reddlred that the receipts Of the
| office as applied to every county in the
! state, shall be paid into the county treas
! ury, and constitute a 'treasurer's fund
for the payment Of treasurers' salaries.
The Legislatures Intention.
cit is utterly inconsistent with any
theory of the intention Of the legislature
that the funds should be created in any
| county and not be applied This conclu-
| sion excludes the idea that it could have
been intended to place the treasurers Of
all the counties, excepting Shelby county,
| upon salaries, and as to that county TO
| permit the old fee system to continue
| or 10 provide by implication that the
] treasurer of that county should serve
! without compensation. We know judi
| cially, that the population Of the omitted
| county and necessary service in the Of
flee of the treasurer thereof entities il
| to be classified among the counties whose
| treasurers were given compensation by
| the act, yet we do not intimate that we
| could know, or that we have authority
! TO determine, to what class said county
! should have been assigned, or what the
| compensation should have been.
| LAS we find the question presented
| ninety-one Of the counties were included
in the salary provisions of the act, while
| one county was wholly omitted. 1t would
| appear, therefore, that the act is local
| in the sense that it applies to less than
the whole state, and that it has failed in
| it's apparent purpose as general law
| applying throughout the state, to all
| counties whose condition and wants rem
der the legislation equally appropriate and
necessary. 1t is no less Questionable in
| this sense, that it includes so great a
part Of the state, and Omits so small a
| fraction. than if it had included but the
| one county, and had omitted the ninety
| one remaining counties.
THAT laws regulating the compensation
| of county officers shall not be local is
! the command Of the constitution, and it
] is not our privilege by artful construc-
| ton to denV the command. though we NAV
! believe that the law which may fail is
| wise and just. We are not to be under
| stood as deciding that the amendment to
| constitution Of March IA, 1881, does not
| in another sense than that already con-
| sidered, permit legislation of a local char
| acter. The provision as amended fOrbds
local or special laws in relation to fees
| and salaries except that laws may be 50
| made as to grade the compensation Of Off
GERS in proportion to the population, and
the necessary services required.
A Point Not Covered.
while it would appear that the franz
ers Of this provision intended that the
varying differences to be found necessary
in basing compensation upon the p)pula-
| ton and the necessary services in the
several counties, or classified districts of
the state, should not be Objectionable as
/ local or special. Of this question we do not
| find it necessary to the present case that
we should express an opinion.
| However, it is perfectly clear that if
| the act Is not Objectionable as local it
| violates sec. %, art. Of the constitution,
! supra That section, by its reference to
| sec % Of the same article requires general
| laws in relation to salaries and in provd-
| ing compensation for county officers, and
| that such laws shall be of uniform opera
| ton throughout the state.
las we have said, the act was designed
| to be general, and 1t was essential that it
should be genera; essential because it's
| subject is within the enumerated cases
required by the constitution to be legis-
| lated upon the general law; essential be-
cause the subject is one in which all the
| offices are created by the constitution,
t..