The Indianapolis journal., 1894-01-26
THE LAW is UPHELD
The Supreme Court Passes on the
Fee and Salary Act.
Held Constitutional as Far as 1t Relates
to Sheriffs-NO Ruling on
Other Officers.

upheld by the highest tribunal In the state,
there being but one dissenting voice-that
OF Justice McCabe, who maintains with
equal vigor that the act should be declared
unconstitutional. The case was test one,
suit being entered last April by James w.
Stout. sheriff of Vigo county, against Audi
tor of State Henderson to compel the pay
ment of certain fees. The Marion Circuit
Court decided in favor of the sheriff holding
that the law was unconstitutional, and di-
recting the Auditor to issue the warrant
for the payment of the fees To this
the Auditor demurred, and his demurrer
not being sustained he appealed June rs
last TO the Supreme Court, which yester-
day reversed the lower courts action and
directed it to sustain the demurrer-in other
words declaring the law constitutional.
Justice Coffey wrote the opinion.
"On the 18th day of April, 1885," begins
the opinion, ''the appellee filed a petition
in the Marion Circuit Court, the purpose of
which was to compel the appellant,
State Auditor, 10 draw q warrant on the
State Treasurer In favor of the relalor, as
sheriff of Vigo county, compensation for
the delivery OF convicts at the southern
State prison. II is alleged in the petition,
among other things, that the relator is the
sheriff Of Vigo county, having been elected
10 lnlL ONCE at the November election, 1897,
that In the years 1892 and 1893, as such Sher-
III, he conveyed from Nigo county 10 the
state Prison South and delivered TO the
warden given number of convcts; that he
was entitled to receive as mileage for the
performance or such duty the sum of 10
cents for each mile Travelled going and re-
turning for each convict, except where more
ethan one was taken at the same time, to
be paid out Of the general funds in the
State treasury; that the State Treasurer
has In that fund more than sufficient to
pay the REALTORS claim, but that the State
Auditor had refused on April 21 his demand
Tor warrant for the sum due him on the
ground that there was a State law passed
IN 1881 over the Governors objections pro-
hiblting sheriffs from receiving mileage for
such purpose; that this act is in conflict
with the provisions of the State Constitu-
ton, and therefore void
1t IS further related in the opinion that
the Marion Circuit Court declared in favor
or Sheriff Stout and ordered a peremptory
writ or mandamus from which action the
Auditor of State appealed to the Supreme
Court questioning the propriety OF the
lower tribunal.
The court says the act in question pur-
ports to fix the compensation of all the
state and county officers, in all branches of
tne government 1t quotes this law hber-
lected by sheriffs under the acts provisions
while designated as sheriffs' costs, shall in
no sense belong to or be the property OF the
sheriff but of the county. The law allows
the sheriff only actual travelling expenses to
be paid out of the State treasury upon the
certificate OF the warden Of the prison ac-
davit.
I'm passing upon and deciding" says the
opinion, the numerous intricate and i'm
portant questions presented In this case by
the learned counsel who have so ably
br1efed and argued them, II Is important
that We should constantly keep In mind
the oft-repeated declaration and rule that
the power TO declare a statute unconSti.u-
tional is a high one and Will never be exer-
cised in doubtful cases. To doubt the con-
stitutionallty OF a law is to resolve in favor
OF Its validity. An act of the Legislature Is
not TO be declared unconstitutional unless
ii Is clearly. palpably and plainly in conflict
with the Constitution. 1t is we'll to keep IN
mind, also, the well-known rules that courts
will pass upon such constitutional questions
only as are necessary to decision of the
cause upon It's merits"
The contentious of the appellee are set
forth briefly: First, that the act violates
the section of the Constitution declaring
that every act shall embrace but one sub
Ject; second, that 1T does not administer JUS
without delay; third, that 1t Is local and
special; fourth. that all laws should be
general and of uniform operation.
The court answers the first contention
by holding that it has been repeatedly de-
clared that the purpose of this provision is
70 20 prevent the passage OF law under a
dicate the subject matter contained in the
act, and, second. to prevent the combining
in one act of two or more subjects having
no relation to each other, whereby legisla-
tors, in order TO procure such legislation as
they wished were often constrained TO as
sist in passing other measures obnoxious
10 them.
This provision, the court admits has been
the source of much perpleXity both in the
Legislature and courts, but it has been
often decided that the title of act need
not go into details and that it is sufficient
II IL indicates with reasonable precision
and clearness the subject il embraces. Nor
is it invalid because it includes details not
mentioned i'm the title If the details are ger
name to the general subject designated in
the title In other words Ii is always nee
esSary TO designate in the title the subject
OF legislation but never necessary to men
tion the matters properly connected with
the subject.
peilee," continues the opinion, that the
law is void because 1t embraces a multi
are properly connected with the subject
designated in the title while others are
simply divisions of that subject II Is no
uncommon thing in legislation TO prescribe
the duties of public officers in the same
act which fixes their compensation, nor is
it uncommon in this State to fix In one
general law the compensation OF public
officers belonging to different classes. This
was done in the fee and salary law of 1872
as well as In those of 1852, 1853, 1865 and
1875 The title sufficiently comprehen-
sive TO call every legislators attention to
the subject under consideration. A provf-
sion recurring officers to tax and collect
1 fees for the purpose of creating a fund
with which they may be paid is properly
connected with the subject as well as a
provision fixing the fees to be taxed and
collected. II is a matter of no concern to
a litigant whether the sheriff who serves
his writs is paid by him direct or whether
| he receives his pay through the medium of
the county treasurer provided the amount
| paid by him is the same in either case
The s'Iocal and special argument or the
| appelee's attorneys the court nIsposes OF
as II does the preceding ones. The law, IL
saws was intended to and does apply 70
| ali officers elected after 1t took effect II
| such q law is invalid the opinion holds
| that IL would be utterly impossible 10 make
| our judicial officers, for the Constitution
| provides that such salaries shall not De re
| duced during the term or an mcumDent
| A statute which is Of general and UNIFORM
| operation throughout the StaIe anu ol'eT-
| ates alike upon all persons under the same
| circumstances is not subject to the impu-
| tation OF being local and speclal.
| The contention that the law Is Local
| and special because IL fails 20 fix a salary
| for the auditor. treasurer and recoIder 9l
| SHELBY county, the opinion holds. depends
| for IT'S relevancy solely upOn the preltnin-
| arv question whether the provisions ci
| the statute are so iuteriocked ana so ue
pendent upon each other that the act must
| Dsrn,it him" IL says Ito litigate matter
| i'm which he has no interest. y party can
| not be permitted to harasS others ana take
| the time OF the courts IN ntlSaung nldlleIs
| in which he has no interest, and for this
| reason IL the provisions of the act undei
| in1meSiiate consideration are or such
| cbaracter as that il cannot stand as tC
the appellees while it might fail as to th'
| not SION 10 inuuire whether IL is or Is no.
| valid as TO the latter. The principle ina
! n statute may be Stitutloha- ana Va,
in part and unconStitutionai anu lhNaii'
| in part is elementary.
The court maintains that where a par
- n statute Is so connected with othel