The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-02-07

nent Advice.
The recent decision of the supreme
court in which the act known as the
fee and salary law, passed in 1891. was
declared 10 be constitutional so far as
sheriffs and circuit court clerks are con-
eerned. but which seems to imply that,
If called upon by persons who are af-
fected and therefore have the right to
call upon the courts for decision, the
supreme court would declare that the
law Is unconstitutional I'm SO far as it
affects the offices of treasurer. recorder
and auditor, has aroused the holders of
these latter offices over the state TO a
determination TO test the law on their
own behalf. At least this is the ex-
pressed determination OF a few of them
and they are simply the prime movers
in the matter and are only waiting for
the ragement of a sufficient num-
Der Of their fellow officers TO make the
start
a. r. Tucker of Hamilton county was
chairman of the executive committee ap-
pointed by the county officers to push
the test case from Vigo county, which
has been so adversely decided regarding
sheriffs and clerks. lie has issued a
circular calling for a meeting at the
Grand hotel in this city of all the treas
urers, auditors and recorders for the pur-
pose of beginning a suit which will cause
the supreme court to pass upon the law
as relates 10 auditors, treasurers and re-
corders. In conversation with a
prominent lawyer yesterday on the sub
ject n Sentinel representative came to
see the matter from a point of view
which. perhaps, has been overlooked by
the officers themselves in their anxiety
to nullify the odious act. The attorney
said:
Il notice that the county recorders and
auditors are considering the propriety of
testing the constitutionality of the fee
and salary law in SO far it regulates their
offices. If these officials Will consult
some good lawyer they will reach the
conclusion that IT is the part of wis
dom 10 let this matter alone just fast
as they can. You see the recent decision
in the sheriff's case declares the law
valid as TO the latter. This means that
the clause i'm the new law. which re-
peals the old law, is valid. Now sup
pose the recorders and auditors were
to secure an adjudication that the new
law is unconstitutional as to them. what
that there was no law under which they
could collect either fees or salaries. That
part Of the new law. as to recorders and
auditors, would thus be eliminated but
the repeating clause and other portions
would be left and thus the old law
would be repealed. Better let IL alOneW
The Courts Decision.
The supreme court decided that
the fee and salary" act of 1891 is con-
stituuonaI in so far as it refers to the
Office of sheriff, and in the opinion pre-
pared by Justice Coffey, refuses to
question the validity of the act re-
garding other offices.
The act in question was passed in
1891, and Notwithstanding the governors
veto went into effect throughout the
state as fast as terms of officers affected
expired. 1t was entitled, AN act fixing
the compensation and prescribing the
duties of certain state and county Off
GERS, and providing penalties for the
violation of it's provisions"
The act materially lessened the COM
pensation of nearly all state and county
officers and was regarded with disfavor
by them. The suit to test the legality
of the act was brought by ]. w. Stout,
sheriff If Vigo county, who attempted
to collect fees under the old laws from
the state auditor, and when payment
was refused filed a petition in the
Marion circuit court, on which an al
tentative writ of mandate was issued
by Judge Brown requiring Auditor Hen
derson TO issue warrants for the pay
ment of the amount demanded or to
appear before the court and show cause
why he refused to do so. To this petit
ton and alternative writ a demurrer
was entered by the defendant. This was
overruled, and the defendant failing and
refusing to answer further, a pre-
emptive writ was ordered, and from that
action and judgment the appeal was
taken to the supreme court.
The appellees claimed in their conten-
ton that the act was unconstitutional:
l. That it violates sec. g. art. a. Of
the state constitution, which declares
that every. act shall embrace but one
subject matter properly connected there
with, which subject shall be expressed
In the title.
?. That 1t violates sec. II, art 1. which
requires that justice shall be admins
tered freely and without purchase; COM
pletely and without denial; speedily and
without delay.
=.
provides that the general assembly shall
not pass any local or special law in re-
gard to fees and salaries except that the
laws be so made as TO grade the compen-
sation and the necessary services re-
quired.
4. That it violates sec. %, art. 4. which
provides that all laws must be made gem
eral throughout the state
Judge Coffey says: THE constitution
only requires that proper subject of
legislation should be expressed in the
title and not the particular features or
details of the law. IL these relate to
the subject expressed it satisfies the con-
stitutional provision. The title of an
act need not go into details. II is suffi-
cient IL il indicates with reasonable pre-
cision and clearness the subject en-
braced. An act concerning highways
is a very general term and yet could
properly and legally be the title to a
variety of constitutional acts. Nor is
an act invalid because it includes details
not mentioned in the title if the de-
tails are germane to the general sub
ject designated in the title. 1t is al
ways necessary to designate in the title
of an act the subject of the legislation,
but IL lis never necessary to mention the
matters which are properly connected
with the subject. The act does not con-
tain the multiplicity of subjects as con-
tended by the appellees Some of the
matter mentioned as subjects are prop
erly connected with the subject, while
others are simply divisions of the sub
ject."
Regarding the second contention of