The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-11
FEES AND SALARIES
Constitutionality of the New Law
Before the Supreme Court.
Decision Expected Very Soon = Mr..
Beasley, Author of the Law,
Roasted for Opposing 1t.

for greater length OF time in which to
argue the questions involved than the GUS
tomary hour TO a side, the court granted
only fifteen minutes extra, and the argu-
ment, consequently, only consumed two
and half hours
The cause originated in the demand OF
the sheriff OF Vigo county upon the Auditor
OF State for payment of 15 cents a mile
for the taking OF a prisoner TO the south
ern penttentiary, allowed by the fee and
salary law OF 1879. while the present law
allows him only his actual travelling ex-
penses. The Marion Circuit Court decided
the statute of 1891 unconstitutional, for
a number of alleged reasons.
The argument for the validity OF the
law was opened by Mr. w. w. Thornton.
of the firm Of Blackledge g. Thornton, OF
this city. He in part said, after outlining
the principal provisions of the statute:
"a law similar in many of it's provisions
to the law of 1891 was enacted in 1871, and
declared unconstitutional. 1t has always
been felt by the people of this State that
a law which enabled the clerk and sheriff
Of Marion county, or the auditor, to take a
compensation which annually was five
times as great as the salary of judge OF
the Supreme Court, or four times that of
the chief executive of the State was an
injustice and a wrong that ought TO be
righted Marion county was not the only
county where such great prices were TO be
awarded. Such a method of compensating
officers was a constant bride of strong and
corrupt men to seek the office for the
money that was in 1t, and not for the hon.
orable distinction it brought.
prompted by the universal demand for
a revision Of the method of paying for Off
cial service, the Legislature Of 1877 passed
a resolution to amend the Constitution so
that a law could be adopted grading the
pay of officers according to the population
and services rendered. The Legislature of
1879 approved this decision and sought to
submit TO the electorate of the State for
adoption, but this court In the summer of
1880 decided that it was not properly sub
mitted, and consequently the adoption In
the year 1873 was illegal. This decision
brought into the campaign of 1850 as great
a bitterness and struggle as ever entered
a campaign The Legislature submitted to
the electorate the proposed amendment, and
IL was adopted In April, 1881, too late for
the Legislature to pass a law in accord
aDce with its provisions. Thus the matter
remained until 1890, when both the great
political parties. through their delegates in
conventions assembled, declared that there
ought to be radical change made in the
law with respect to fees and salaries. These
declarations were emphatic, and they were
heartily Endorsed by nearly half million
voters.
House Of 1871 for revision Of the fees end
salaries. it met the opposition of as strong
a lobby as ever surrounded the Legisla-
ture. Politics were buried. and every coun-
ty officer in the State joined hands to de-
feat the bill. The county officers are the
most influential persons with their repre-
c.Fafu Of
succeeded in burying the bill in the COM
mittee Another bill was introduced. and
after as memorable a struggle as ever
law was enacted And now, after this long
struggle the electorate of this State have
turned their eyes anxiously TO this court
to see If the work of a quarter of a CEN
fury will be wiped out with a single stroke
OF the judicial pen
a vested right to the compensation allowed
by statute for his services before he has
earned it, unless secured by the Constitu-
ton. Long ago this court held that a per-
to whatever regulations the Legislature
might afterwards make respecting 1t. The
compensation, and the duties to be per-
formed, might be increased or lessened as
the public good, in the opinion Of the Legis-
lature should require In other States
Ii has been held that the Legislature may
completely take away the fee or salary OF
an officer before he has earned them"
The argument was then directed to the
u.
the two preceding officers Of the Legislature
sent to the Governor and then passed over
his veto, could be examined in determining
what was enacted by the Legislature, and
that the correction of the act attempted by
the Secretary of State in the printed laws
was a nullity, the decision of the United
States Supreme Court on the Mckinley tar
III law being relied on.
"Such being the case this law was of gem
sTd r neither local an nor :,
county auditor, treasurer. recorder. clerk
and sheriff in the State, Notwithstanding the
fact that no salary Is provided for the audi
tor, treasurer and recorder OF Shelby coun-
ty. Looking at the enrolled act we can say
that 1t was not the intention of the Legisla-
GERS of Shelby county. We cannot say that
they were omitted by mistake. That con-
struction must be adopted that will uphold
t thls E1w avn, !, can De zone; rather than one
Legislature intended to provide a salary for
those officers Is TO presume that the Legis-
lature Intended to do what IL did not do and
on this presumption to overthrow a. solemn
act OF a coordinate branch OF the govern
ment; Acts of the Legislature cannot be
overthrown on mere prescriptions: there
must be for that purpose something more
substantial. If an injustice has been done
those three officers, then the Legislature
must be appealed TO to right the wrong; in
fact, they did so by the amendment of 1904 -
The speaker then showed that the Le-e1sla-
salary law even though il was claimed that
the law OF 1891 was unconstitutional: but on
the contrary, amended the present law. this
being equivalent 20 two decisions by this
body that the law was valid
To the claim that declination of the Leg
lslature to provide a salary for
the Shelby county officers was special or
local legislation and an unjust discrinina-
ton between the county officers OF the
State: the provision of the Constitution ex-
pressly authorized the Legislature to grade
the compensation OF county officers accord
ing to the population and services rem
dered; and upon this point the Legislature
had a discretion with which the courts
could not interfere
The claim that fees constituted one sub
tect and salaries another. and therefore
two subjects were embraced in the same
act, was combated by pointing out that
ton and prescribing the duties OF certain
State and county officers" and the Con-
stitution, after providing that local or Spe-
cial laws should not be passed in relation
that the law might be SO made as to grade
the compensation Of officers in proportion
to the population and the necessary service
rendered" The word compensation clear
ly covered both fees and salaries
In opposition to the claim that the act
contained other subjects, counsel cited the
tax law of 1881 and that of 1884, and yet
no one claimed that these acts contained
more than one subject, although they con-
tanned a multitude of details. Counsel COM
pared the law under discussion with that
Tor the erection OF the StatehOuse. where
In officers and plans were provided for, and
In the concluding section n tax levied with
which 10 build the proposed building.
To the claim that fees and salaries could
not be provided for State. judicial and coun-
" officers in n single act. the speaker called
attention TO the fact that State and judicial
officers were provided for in single act in
provided salaries for the judiciary alone,
for the reason that the salaries of the