The Indianapolis journal., 1894-01-26
EFFECT OF THE DECISION.
1t VIII Practically Cover All the
County Officers.

Mr.. W. w. Thornton, OF the firm OF Black
ledge & Thornton, of this city, who aided
the Attorney-general in his defense of the
law before the Supreme Court, was asked
last evening by Journal reporter what he
thought of the decision on the validity of
the fee and salary law.
'I have not seen the opinion of the court"
said he, "but only a synopsis of it. OF
course. the report of it must be very super
fetal, for the opinion did not go down to
the clerks Office until 2 o'clock this after
noon, From the synopsis however, it seems
that the court has gone fully into all the
questions discussed in the briefs necessary
10 decision of the cause. After | had
made an examination of the authorities and
began to assist in the preparation of the
brief of the appellant l became convinced
that the statute was valid and not subject
to the objections urged against it. This
decision settles the validity of this act
far as it affects the sheriffs of the State;
and being valid as TO them, by clear analogy
II is valid as to, the clerks and State Off
GERS
How about the county oficers?" was
asked.
upon salaries were the auditors treasurers
and recorders. The only ground left for
them TO stand upon and contend that the
law is invalid is the failure of the Legis-
lature to provide salaries for the auditor,
treasurer and recorder Of shelby county; !
the court has not passed upon this phase
of the question. Having come to the con-
clusiOn that the statute was valid so far
as IL related to sheriffs, and that the part
relating to them could be severed from
those relating to the other officers, and
when so severed the former was complete,
it would have probably been q mere dictum
for the court to have declared the statute
valid as TO these auditors, treasurers and
.Do you think these three classes of off,
GERS will attack the validity of the law on
the ground of the omission in Shelby coun-
'''I don't think they will The risk is too
great. If they do; and the court declares
find themselves to be without authority to
collect any fees whateyer
How could that be?'
Wen. that question involves the ques-
ton of the repeal of a statute by one that
is unconstitutional. Years ago our supreme
Court decided that If an unconstitutional
statute contained a general repeating Sec
ton, ali the statute went down except
| this section. and that this section repealed
Unconstitutional part. Afterwards the
/ court decided that the repeating section fell
Now Now IL II the fee and salary law should be
| declared invalid as TO the auditors treas
urers and recorders, there would remain
| the general repeating section, and ii is a
/ very serious question If that section would
| not repeal the old law on fees and sal
| aries. and leave these officers without any
4 the decisions L have referred TO are not
| necessarily analogous nor In point"
| put will IL not be "A great hardship to
require these three officers in Shelby coun-
/ " TO perform the duties OF their offices
| without compensation?
They in no such a condition. The
law did not apply 10 single officer elect
; ed IN 1880 1t does apply 10 officers elect
al in 1892. but IL is my understanding that
/ these officers in Shelby county did not take
/ their offices until after the amendment of
/ 1893. which provides salaries for them.
went into force.
What do you think will be the next
move OF the county officers?'
Il think they will wait until the next
LEGISLATURE assemblies and then make an
attack upon il all along the line"
VIII they endeavor to secure its re-
I peal2'
Il don't think they WILL The principle