The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-05
CLERK HA.SSs SALARY.
Some Doubt as to Whether Ii Can he
Paid Out of His Fees.

On the application of Auditor OF State
Henderson. Attorney general Ketcham yes
terday gave an opinion upon this question:
May the Auditor of State, out of the gen.
eral fund, pay the salary of the Clerk or
the Supreme Court. his deputy and assist
ants?' The opinion holds that this propo-
sition is by no means free from doubt
Mr.. Ketcham refers to act of May s, 1888,
defining what constitutes the general fund
and providing for the quarterly payment
of certain salaries, naming certain officers,
but not including that of the Clerk OF the
Supreme Court whose compensation was
provided in another way, but in 1881 the
Clerk was put upon a salary upon SUB
stantially the same footing as the other
State officers. The Attorney general con-
tinues: Il understand that in 1893 an APP
preparation was made for the payment OF
appropriation was made for the Clerk OF
the Supreme Court Under the act OF sf.a May a;
$. 1884, there can be no question but that
the salaries of the officers named in that
named in the appropriation bill of 1898, and
that would doubtless be true with refer
ence to the Clerk of the Supreme Court
had he been included in Section 6652, as he
The act of 1891, continues the Attorney
general, provides that the Clerk shall re-
ceive a certain percentage upon the fees
and charges collected by him, but wholly
right to retain his salary out of such col
lections. even if they amounted to sufficient
to enable him to retain his salary and e&-
penses of the Office from such collections
It would be Irregular, to say the least
for the Clerk to apply the collections as Il
airy and would result In a complication or
the books that the statute does not seem TO
contemplate, The opinion continues.
IVES have then the situation that Acon-
stitutional officer is required 10 perform
assistants is specifically and carefully fixed
and no provision whatever for the payment
thereof unless the act of 1851 can. so far
May s, 1858. The only ether course by which
the Clerk can be compensated Is by a de-
ficiency appropriation bill by the next sue
ceeding General Assembly in settlement of
salary begins only a short time before t-ie
converting of the next General Assembly
is unimportant, for that situation
w msh5 take * b Changed sce % and that the n
airy begin. immediately succeeding the
I find 1t is more in harmony with d proper
construction of the statutes TO hold that
the act of 1891 and the act of May g. 1929,
should be construed as in pari materia and
so construed as saying that the salary OF
the Clerk of the Supreme Court in addition
to the other officers specifically named
should be payable quarterly on the last
day of January. ETC., as recjted In view
however, of the immediate approach OF
the General Assembly and the fact that
under that law the salaries. could not be paid
until the 31st day of January, We're the
Clerk of the Supreme Court / should not
| call upon the Auditor of State for warrants
until the General Assembly had had an op-
portunity to make provision for the situa-
| ton, but should he do so 1T is my opinion
that you would he justified in acting upon
the general law and at the expiration OF the
| quarter named issue your warrants upon the
| general fund for the amount named In the
| ar