St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-09-20
JUDGE BRILL UPHOLDs HIS OPIN<
ION ON THE SALARY CUES
TIoN. !.1
THEY CANNOT BE CUT DOWN
DECISION IN THE CASE INVOLVE
ING THE PAY OF CITY OFF,
GALS.
THE LAW ON THE sunJEo
Carefully Gone Over in a Memoirs
andum by the
Court.


ting the salaries of city officials is
dead letter as far as it's application
to the heads of departments is con-
cerned, for the city council has no
power to reduce the salaries of those
officials. SO says Judge Brill in a
long memorandum attached to his
ruling in the suit of City Engineer
Rundlett against the city yesterday.
1t was not necessary to have the
case taken before Judge Brill to OBJ
tain this information, for Corpora.
ton Counsel Darragh told the coun-
Gil this very thing when the resolu-
ton was under consideration. His
opinion was exactly the same as that
Of the court in all the essential feat
ures Of the case, though, Of course,
not so elaborate. The G o took
the same position and view of the
case editorially. The natural conse-
quence is that Mr.. Darragh feels
elated over the outcome of the case,
not less for the reason that he will
still continue to draw his s., 900 a
year salary than that his position on
a question Of so much importance
has been in such close conformity
with that of such authority as Judge
Brill.
Further than advising the coun--
Gil as to the illegality of the resolu-
ton, the corporation attorneys office
has had nothing to do with the case
directly, owing to the fact that the
Office was interested in a financial
way. Attorney Robertson Howard
represented the city in the case. In
MS answer to the complaint he
pleaded the resolution passed by the
city council, and the plaintiff de-
INJURED to the answer. Judge Brill
sustains the demurrer, and from the
long memorandum attached to his
order the following extracts, cover
ing the essential points, are taken:
The question in this case is. wheth.
er the common council Of the city Of
ST. Paul has power to determine the
salary OF the city engineer, or wheth-
er the amount of his salary has been
absolutely fixed by the legislature.
The council has only such powers
as are expressly, or by necessary inn
plication, granted to it by the legis-
lature. If the legislature itself has
fixed the salary of a city officer. the
common council has no power to
change it, unless such power is ex-
pressly granted.
AT certain times in the history of
the multitudinous and complex legis-
lation regarding the city, the common
council had certain functions to per-
form in connection with fixing the SAL
airy of the city engineer. At certain
times 1t was given power to fix his
salary below certain sum specified.
1t is contended by the plaintiff that
MS salary is now absolutely fixed by
legislative enactment, and that the
council has no power to change the
same. An examination of the legisla-
ton had upon the subject shows.
without doubt, that his contention
must be sustained.
CHARTER REVISION.
1t is not necessary, in considering
the question, to go farther back than
the year 1874. A complete revision of
the charter was had at that time.
All the previous legislation relating
to the city was collected together
and arranged in one act; changes and
additions were made. and the act as
passed constituted the charter of the
city.
This charter provided for the cleo
ton or appointment of the various
city officers. and in some instances
fixed their salaries, and under appro-
pirate subchapters it provided for the
various legislative and administrative
departments and prescribed their DOW
ers and duties.
The provision regarding the salary
of the city engineer was 'he shall re-
ceive a salary to be fixed by said
board of public works with the con-
currence of the common council of said
city. He shall be entitled to
such additional compensation for as
sistants as may be allowed by said
board, with the concurrence of the
common council"
1t is apparent that the provision
giving the council power to fix salaries
contained in section % did not applv
to the case of the city engineer. That
provision was only applicable where
the salary of an officer was not other
wise provided in this act. It was pro-
vided in the act that the salary of
the engineer should be fixed by the
board of public works, with the con-
currence of the council.
Discussing the various acts of 1916.
1878, 1883. 1887 and 1891 and their re-
lations to the charter act the court
proceeds to say:
A subsequent statute revising the
subject-matter of a former one. and
evidently intended as a substitute for
1t, although it contains no express
words of repeal, must operate as a
repeal of the former to the extent
to which its provisions are revised
and supplied. The act of 1851, when
passed, regulated the appointment and
duties of the city engineer, and the
matter of his salary. 1T was evidently
intended by the legislature to cover the
subject. 1t was the last expression
of the legislative will, ard it consti-
tuted the law relating to the salary Of
the engineer.
CHANGES IN THE LAWS.
1t is too well sottIed to need citation
of authorities, that when statute pro-
vides that section of a former act
"shall he amended SO as to read as
follows" any part of such section not
found In the new section is repealed.
There can be no doubt that the amend
ment of section Is of the act of 1881 by
the act of 1883 repealed every provision
of section is not contained in the law
of 1888, and so the provision of section
IS Of tho law of 1851 that the common
council might reduce the salary of the
various offices was repealed by the law
of 1883. Who're clause in an act is