St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-30
In the Face Of the Recent
Opinion Of Attorney Cen
eral Childs,
WHO SAYS DISTRICT JUDGES
Must Be Paid the Extra Com
pensation Provided by
Law.

torney General ChildS' opinion, handed
in yesterday. County Attorney Butler
had requested an Interpretation of the
law on the subject, and Attorney Cen
eral ChildS decides that the compensa-
ton must be paid, as it is required by
law. He declares Elmund's position
wholly untenable, and says that the
statute was designed, not to beStoW a
gratuity on the judges, but to pay
them for services rendered. The opin-
ion follows:
State of Minnesota, Attorney Gener-
ais Office.
ST. PAUL, March 20, 1895.
Pierce Butler, Esq, County Attor-
ney, st. Paul, Minn.-Dear Sir: You
call attention to the provisions of Ses-
sion Laws of 1887, chapter 376, as
amended by Session Laws of 1885, chap
ter f29, and inquire, in effect. whether,
in my opinion, the act is a valid eXer-
else of legislative authority.
The act in question directs the pay
ment "out of the county funds of
Ramsey county of $1,000 annually to
each Of the district judges. The pur-
pose of such payment, as disclosed by
the title of the original act, is to afford
additional compensation to said Off
GERS. The county treasurer, acting I'M
der advice of private counsel. has de-
clined to observe the provisions of the
statute, on the ground of unconstitu-
tionaliyy. 1t is objected that the act
is void, because, -
First-District judges being state Off
GERS. it is beyond the power of the
legislature to select one county, as at
tempted in this case, and compel it to
pay out of its funds the whole or any
part of the salaries of such judges, or
other state officers, except so far as it
pays its -
RATABLE PROPORTION,
like all other counties in the state.
This is regarded as offensive to section
! Of article 8 of the state constitution.
Second-It provides for unequal tax
alton in violation of section l of article
l for direct double taxation.
Third-It compels the county to be-
stow a gratuity upon the district
judges.
1 am unable to subscribe to either of
the above contentious, and believe
them overthrow by the following con-
siderations:
The constitution Of this state pro-
EiO-'c lltsll 3iC JlsQSSSS VI llit CHIC
and district courts shall be men learned
in the law, and shall receive such COM
pensation at stated times as may be
provided by the legislature" (Article
6, section g. The legislature is thereby
invested with full discretionary power,
subject to q limitat ton elsewhere pro-
vided, to deal with the subject of COM
pensation Of such officers. 1t is within
that power to provide that such COM
pensa ton shall rest either upon the
state at large or upon judicial districts
or counties, according to such just rule
of apportionment as the legislature
might provide. So far as the question
of legislative power is concerned, it is
matter of slight importance at best
whether district judges be deemed
state, district or county officers. It is
enough to know that they form part of
| the judicial system of the state, with
duties and powers peculiar to the whole
state and to every political subdivi-
| sion thereof. The legislature has pro-
| vided salary of $3.50 per annum to
| the district judges, payable out of the
| state treasury. In so doing it treats
| all persons and localities alike. Is 1t
consistent to concede that such COM
pensation might be imposed upon ~
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS,
and deny that the state may provide
| for it to a given extent from its treas
| ury, and beyond that impose it upon
| counties or districes, according to ben
| efitS received?
The concession cannot be harmo-
nized with the denial. 1t is the same
| in principle whether the state pro-
VideS at the outset that counties or
! districts shall sustain the whole burden
| or that the state will assume it to a
| certain extent. The provision of the
! constitution above quoted is ample
| warrant for the latter course. con-
| cur in the view expressed in one of the
| briefs of counsel that the apportion-
ment of the burden of tax between
| the whole state and the locality found
| by the legisla ture to be specially in
| terested or benefited is governmental
question addressed to legislative dis
| erection, and when SO determined it is
not to be disturbed save in case of an
| oppressive abuse of that discretion
1t is in my judgment mistaken
| view of the law that the statute re-
| suits in duplicate taxation. The illus
| tration of Judge Cooley, now men
toned because of the eminence of the
authority, and referred. to by counsel.
is quite appropriate. Speaking Of a
| tax levied for the erection of a state
capitol, that learned author says:
cit would be clear. we should say,
| that such tax should be spread over
the state at large, because the purpose
is a state purpose, and every individ-
ual in the state is directly interested
in its accomplishment. But it is also
apparent that the people and the prop
| erty at the place upon which the struc-
ture is proposed to be constructed
would receive special and probably
very great benefits in consequence of
| the construction, beyond what they
| would receive in common with all
others" Cooley on Taxation, I'd Ed,
1857
The element of double taxation does
not enter into the question.
THE LOCAL TAX
| is provided to compensate for addi-
tional benefits. There is no other tax
alton for such purpose. 1t was COM
petent for the legislature to take cog
nizance of the increased duties Incl
dental to the judicial office in RAMSEY
! county, and to provide that the lust
| compensation which should be award
! ed for the correspondingly increased
labor Of the incumbent should he
borne by the taxpayers of the county.
The supreme court of this state has
! said that when taxes are "distrib-
uted on just principles, applicable
! alike to all for whose benefits the an-
preparation is made or intended. sub