The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-27
A SECOND TEST CASE
States Brief in the Lake County
Appealed Fee and Salary Suit.
Difference Between Sections of Law Fix.
ing Fees and Fixing SaIaries-A
Remedy in the Legislature.

Thornton have filed a brief in the Supreme
Court in the case Of State ex rel Mccoy
against Krost. The case involves the va
lidity of the fee and salary law Of 1881.
The brief. In part, is as follows:
This is an action brought by. John F.
krost against the recorder or Lake county
TO compel him TO record deed OF land
situated in that county. The Zee rendered
for recording the deed was 81 the amount
prescribed by the fee and salary law or
1891. The recorder demanded N25.. the
amount allowed under the old fee ana SAL
airy law. The Circuit Court held that Slzo
rendered, thereby declaring that the Zee
and salary law OF 1891, so far as IL applied
to recorders. was unconstitutional. because
Shelby county. If this judgment is at
firmed, then very important parts Of the
turned and the fruition of years of strug-
gle between the ofice-holding class and
the electorate of the State be swept away:
will apply, by analogy, to both the county
auditors and treasurers and thus three
eral counties OF the State will either escape
or be held In the meshes Of the law or
The fee and salary law (Acts 1891, p.
i2D provides the same rate OF fees 10 be
charged by recorders in every county in the
State sta Although no salary is provided for
required to charge the same fees for the
same services rendered as is charged in
any Olner OF the nlnety-One counties OF Ine
State The same is true OF the county aud
itor and county treasurer. The method OF
the taxation OF fees for recorders. aud
itors and treasurers is uniform throughout
the State, fixed by one law OF universal
applications law as general IL is pos
sible to make any law upon any subject
THE FEE SECTIONS.
'The sections fixing the amount Of the
fees. and providing for their collection,
payment to the county treasurers and re-
orofa from.
those sections fixing the amount of the
salaries of the five county officers Of the
several counties of the State. These Sec
tons fixing the amount OF the salaries may
be wholly invalid. and yet the sections
providing the amount of the fees TO be
taxed be valid. The sections are not so
interviewer that II one goes down the whole
d muS1 aa nd ,b ae salary sections may b 20
being true, then the appellee must fail and
the case be reversed, for the amount or
fees required by the new law was rendered.
and the appellee cannot refuse to accept 1t
on the ground that no salary has been pro-
vided for him. If he has pulled the house
down upon his own head by attacking the
validity Of this statute, he cannot complain
If he be badly bruised or crushed. 1t is
his own doing, not ours, not that or his
constituency, not that OF the electorate OF
mo reasonable argument can be urged
fall fully within the letter and spirit or
the decision of this court in Henderson VS..
State ex rel Stout. They comply with all
the requirements of the Constitution. If
the recorders of the State desire redress
they can appeal to the Legislature, which
has ample power to provide them with not
only salaries for the future but compensate
them for the past II is there that their
remedy lies, and they should not appeal to
their right to salaries except themselves.
We think they are entitled to them. Ii Is
an old saying that You can lead the horse
"A law fixing the salaries OF county off,
GERS and grading them according to tbs
dered is OF necessity a local law. We do
not believe that this can be successfully
Salaries of county Officers according to the
population Of the county. This has been
done In years gone by. And it might also
grade the salaries according to the area or
| the counties. Such has been the practice,
| IL not In this State, yet in other States. 1t
| is a matter of experience that two counties
| OF the same population may not have the
same volume OF public business, because
Of difference OF area; and two counties or
ume of business. because of the difference
| in population; and even two counties OF the
same area and population may not have
the same volume of business. But the Con-
stitution requires the salaries TO be graded
according TO the population, and this, per-
haps, would prevent grading according to
| the area Now, IL Is practically easy TO
| grade salaries according to population or
area: but how is II when they must also
| ices performed?
'Tt is utterly impracticable to do SO. Ii is
beyond the power of determination. We are
then driven to the fact that the only way
| in which the salary OF the county officer
can be determined according TO this const-
tutional provision is for the legislature to
| fix the exact amount in figures for each
officer. In doing IL must consider both
| the population of the county and the necss-
| sary services required OF the officers. And
We may remark in passing that the Legis-
lature OF 1891 evidently did consider and de-
termine the amount OF business required OF
the various county officers OF the state; Tor
the salaries of these officers are by no
means graded according to the population,
as a table Of the population and the SAL
aries readily shows.
COMBINATION OF LAWS.
From these facts 1t necessarily results
that salary law, though applying to the
ninety-two sheriffs Of the State, is. in eff
| feet, a combination of ninety-two local
| laws There is no uniformity in II. Ii is no
| more general in effect than If ninety-two
separate bills had been passed, each fixing
| the salary of a sheriff 1t is utterly impos-
sible to comply with the spirit of the Con-
! stitution upon the subject OF general laws.
! 1t is beyond human capacity and power.
Any attempt to do so, which results in an
| ineligible law, only reaches a combination
| of special and local laws, just as obnoxious
| to the Constitution as ninety-two laws one
for each county, would be.
| The fixing Of the salary OF county off,
| Ger is not regulating county business the
| great object IN view IN rSquiring the busi-
4 ness of counties to be conducted under gen.
eral laws, and uniformly, was that citizen
| of county a could transact business in
county Il with as much certainty, ease and
expedition as a citizen OF that county could
| do it, 1t was also to enable the courts TO
enforce, by Interpretation OF a general
| statute. a uniform practice. and thus enable
them to administer Justice more speedily,
| more certainly and without dangers Occa-
| stoned by the delay consumed in examining
| special statute for each county In the
| State. This was. in general, the reason for
| the adoption of this clause, and when there
| is no reason for enforcing 1t, its effect
| should not be insisted upon, although verb
| ally applicable, for, as we shall hereafter
\ See the provisions OF a constitution are
| strictly construed. This constitutional clause
| has application to law fixing the
| amount OF county officers salary. IL
| may to the manner in which he shall be
| paid, but that is not the question here IL
| is no concern of an inhabitant OF county a
| what an officer In county Il may receive as
| salary. a never have any legal occa-
| eff TO VII Officer