The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-19
FILED ANOTHER BRIEF.
messrs. Lamb and Deaslcy Further
Attack the Fee and Salary Bill.


Mesrs. Lamb and Beasley, of Terre Haute.
representing the county officers, or, more
particularly, Sheriff Stout, OF Vigo county
in his suit in the Supreme Court to have
the fee and salary law declared unconstitu-
tional, filed a supplemental brief in that
court yesterday.
THE point is made in argument" saw the
attorneys, that the relator, Stout, the
appellee here, cannot question the validity
OF the law involved in this appeal, because
the law is complete as TO the sheriffs, and
therefore the sheriffs cannot complain be-
cause, as TO some other Office, the law Is
local, special and unconstitutional. The
real question Is can the relator raise the
question to the constitutionality of this
law in a suit to mandate the Auditor of
State to compel him to pay the relator for
fees earned under a former and the only
valid law under which he can pay at all
If the act of 1891 is unconstitutional?
Sheriff Stout the appellee, is not COM
planning in this suit because the auditor of
Shelby county under the act of 1891 is not
allowed any compensation for his official
services, but is contending that the law of
1891 is unconstitutional and void, not alone
because 1t is local and special by reason
other reasons discussed in the briefs and
oral argument"
The appellee insists, through his attorneys.
that because of the unconstitutionality of
this law, the law Of 1879 is in force, and he
IS entitled to the compensation for services
rendered under that law just the same as
If the one of 1891 had never been passed
The attorneys hold that no court. so far as
they can discover, has ever held that any
citizen or officer injured or affected in per-
son or property rights may not test the con-
Sttutionality of any law which, by it's
terms shall injure him in person and prop-
erty. The act OF 1891 provides a schedule
of fees for sheriffs the one Of 1879 provides
g, greater compensation for the same serv-
ice. Now, Sheriff Stout asks for compensa-
ton under the last named act rather than
the one which he claims is unconstitutional.
He is injured TO just the extent or the diff
ference between the amount of fees pre-
scr-ibed by the two acts. and is privileged
TO raise the question OF the uncOnStitution-
ality of the one which so INJURIES him.
In the oral argument and printed brief
they have endeavored to show that if this
law is unconstitutional in any part, ii must
be held invalid as a whole, because it is
so interblended and connected in it's pro-
visions that iC must stand or fall together
1t is practically conceded i'm argument that
the law is unconstitutional so far, at least,
as it affects auditors recorders and treas
urers. by reason of the omission TO provide
for compensating these officers in Shelby
county. Assuming that the Supreme Court
cannot, under the authorities but hold the
law unconstitutional, to that extent will
the court say it can be upheld so far as it
fixes a schedule to be charged by sherffs
and clerks and the salary to be received
by these officers in various counties OF the
State. and that as to auditors. recorders
and treaSurerS it is unconstitutional and
void.
would it not be doing violence to every
rule of statutory construction and the man.
ifest intent and purpose of the legislature
the brief concludes, Ito say that body
would have passed this law in its ter ms
knowing that when passed il would be
stricken down so far as Ii applies to county
auditors, recorders and treasurers. but per-
mitted 10 stand so far as ii affects sherfffs
and clerks? 1t may also be added, first. that
where, as here. there is a constitutional
statute under which warrants can be drawn,
the Auditor of State has no right or power
to draw warrants under any other; second,
that the Auditor Of State expressly assert
right to compel him to accept warrants I'M
der void statute and this the former had
no mower 70 do