The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-03-30
SHELTON WASHINGTON. FRIDAY MARCH 80 1884,
Pay Of County Officers.

|
novel proposition, which, if its posi-
ton proves sound, will send thrill of
terror through the hearts of the num-
erous employees in the various county
officers.
The proposition is this, that the
constitution of the state provides that
the legislature "shall fix the compen-
sation of all such officers Ii. e. county
officers) in proportion to their duties
and for that purpose may classify the
counties by population" and further
provides that"'the salary of any coun-
ty officer shall not be increased or
diminished after his election or during
his term of Office"
On these constitutional provisions
the argument, apparently sound on
its face, is made that the manifest in
tent of the constitution was that COM
pensation should be provided in full
by the legislature for the performance
of all of the duties of each county
officer, such compensation to be based
upon the relative amount of such dut-
les to be performed by such officer,
and to be sufficient to compensate the
county officer, not only for his services
o1a
from time to time, may be compelled
to employ.
From this it would follow logically
that the payment by the county, out
of the general county funds, of salar-
les to the employees of the various
county Offices, is unwarranted and in
direct violation of the mandates of
the constitution of the state, although
a section of the statutes has been
thought to warrant such payment.
Such payment having been, unwar-
ranted, and in violation of the consti-
tuition, the county commissioners are
personally liable to the county for
every dollar so paid out
On parallel provision in the state
constitution, the supreme court of
California, in recent decision, 2Sth
Pacific Reporter, held that the salary
affixed by law for the performance of
the duties of county clerk was all the
money authorized to be paid him;
that the action of the county conf
missioners in allowing county clerk
a deputy, and paying that deputy $500
year, was unauthorized, as violating
the mandate of the constitution that
an officers salary could not be in
creased during his term of office, and
that state law authorizing such en-
ployment and payment of assistants
to county officers was void, because it
attempted indirectly to evade an ex
press mandate of the constitution.
The California supreme court is a
very respec table body, and its opinions
have considerable weight with the
bench and bar If their view of the
law be correct, certainly the payment
of employees of county officers by the
county commissioners is absolutely in
violation of the constitution.
This matter of considerable i'm
portance to the taxpayers, as we'll as
to the county officers. There is a
growing suspicion that the expense of
conducting the various county offices
is rather more than is should be, and
it is certain that the change from the
fee to the salaried system has not as
yet turned any appreciahle surplus of
revenue into the county treasury, as
was confidently expected it would do
! We suggest that test case might
be made, and an authoritative deci-
sion had on the subject.-Press Times.
|