The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-26

The county commissioners met yes
terday and fixed the schedule of sala
ries for the county officials not other
wise provided for by the legislature
AS predicted in The Herald some day
ago the county officials interested
would not allow this action to be Ia
ken without protest. Attorneys Johr
NJ. Zane and James H. Moyle appeared
in behalf of the officials affected ans
pointed out the many defects in the
law. The question hinges upon the
legality of applying the adopted sala
ries from January 4, when Utah be.
came a state. The fees collected by
the officers amount to considerably
more than they would get at the sal
airy rate, and this is the only interest
they have at stake.
John NJ Zane appeared for the coun-
ty recorder, with a compromise. he
said that owing TO the difficulties in in
terpreting the law and the constitu-
ton on the problem of salaries and
fees, there was grave doubts as to the
two acts which bear upon the question
being legal.
The act relating to the fixing of sala-
ries, said Mr.. Zane, was so dense IS to
Ecrbid its being fairly interpreted. All
things considered, Mr.. Crismon was
willing to accept The fees which had
been collected since the first of the
year, or approximately the time the
act went into effect, up TO the 5th of
June and after that time the salary
which the commissioners fixed would
be acceptable.
Mr.. Zane read the constitution which
provides that all officers shall ''be paid
fixed and definite salaries The in
depreciation Of this clause by a court
would mean that the salary should be
fixed by a legislative enactment" En-
go, under its provisions definite legisla-
tive enactment is required and the
county commissioners have no power
to usurp legislative function in this
connection.
The act of Feb. II purports to say
that all fees which have been collected
from the 4th of January shall be turn
ed into the treasury, when under the
law all fees taken il by the several Off
GERS were their own. The law which
provides for the taking of fees is in
force, under the provisions of the en-
aiding act, until repealed by legisla-
ton by the legislature of the state
But in this case it cannot be reason
ably construed, and the speaker did
not thirk any court would hold that
the taking Of fees by retroactive piece
OF legislation was anything save con-
fiscation.
Because, in this case. a mans fees
are his property under the law and
cannot be taken away. The statutes in
force at the time the law was passed
gave them TO him and nothing short of
"a direct act passed at the time the
legislature met and Immediately signed
by the executive would be of force and
effect. The act of Feb. II which pro-
Nldes for the turning over of the fees,
goes into effect June 5. The act which
was passed regulating salaries takes
erect upon different date. How can
an act be passed which takes away
the fees of an officer and another one
which gives him salary for the work
he Is doing While he is collecting these
same fees be held in allegiance? The
law contemplaues that a person shall
he paid for his work
AS matter of fact there is no at
torney who can say whether the acts
to are valid or not. That is
a question which is TO be passed unon
by the courts. Until judicial determi-
nation is had there can be no accurate
knoWIedge of what is the law. But.
a general knowledge gathered by OBJ
is that the law is defective
II IS special legislation, the salary bin !
in this, that it creates classes Of coun |
ties and there are cases where there is :
pLe one county in the same class. This !
IS nothing, If not special legislation If /
Is special in this, that it makes the /
of some officers certain and /
others indefinite.
AS soon as Mr.. Zane had completed
Geddes propounded the question:
Where do you get the authority for
saying we have no right to fix the sala- I
RES of the officials?"
To this Mr.. Zane replied: "wen
you can decide as 10 whether you want
law suit or not. We ask that the /
50 harry of the county recorder be f1xed !
after the 9TH Of June. That is an"
WHITTEMoREs OPINION
County Attorney Whittemore differed
with the contestants, and at the sno-
gesuon Of the commissioners prepared
an opinion covering the question which
ne submitted at the afternoon session.
and which was as follows:
Salt Lake City, Utah, April %, 1896.
To the Honorable County Court of Salt
Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Gentlemen-In response to your re-
luest for an opinion constituting the
7arious provisions of the state consti-
luton and laws of the state legisla-
u SOAtSCAA AAS luS lees IndI nave
been collected by the officers OF this
county since the 4th day of January,
S96, and the payment of the same
nto the proper treasures and concern
ng the salaries of the various. county
Ulcers, / beg leave to submit the fol-
owing:
To determine these questions fully
lecessitates, first, a consideration of
ertain provisions of the state con-
titution concerning county officers.
nd, as a preface to what follows with
eference to these constitutional pro-
isions, desire to say that in nv
pinion all county officers owe their
fhcial existence at the present time
OF TO the fact that they were elected
o their respective Offices by the peo-
lie OF the late territory. of Utah but to
he provisions Of section 10 of article .
of the state constitution, which Sec
ion reads as follows: ''All officers. !
ivil and military, now holding their ,
fices and appointments in this terri !
1ry by authority of law, shall con- :
nue. to hold and exercise their respec- {
We offices and appointments until
uperseded under this constitutions: '
rovided the provisions Of this section I
hall be subject to the provisions of f
ne act of congress, providing for the r
Omission of the state of Utah, ap- i
roved, etc." and that if it were not a
n this provision the official existence S
every county officer would have v
erminated at the date when the terri
my Of Utah became state. For this i
- I Y