The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-02-09
Butte department.

the state. OK rel. Martin. against Kalb
| 80 Wisconsin, us, case in which IL
was decided that an officer whose office
| was created by the legislature, under
the provision OF the constitution au-
thorizing the legislature to provide for
! such Office, was not protected by the
| constitutional prohibition against a de-
| crease OF salary or emolument during
the term, he not being. as il was there
| said, an officer named in the constitu-
| ton. This case also depends for its sup
! port upon the earlier case of the board
/ OF supervisors against Hackctt, q Wis
! consin. go. in which II was decided
/ that the following constitutional pro-
! vision, Nor shall the compensation OF
/ any public officer be increased or d.
minished during his tcrn Of Office" APP
!. plod only 70 such officers as received
fixed salary. payable out of the public
treasury Of the state, and that il does
not, and was not intended TO apply
ITO the remuneration of that large class
OF officers - - who receive specific
fees for specific services from time to
time as they are required to render
Them There are decisions by the
courts Of other states To the same ef-
feet, but as far as I have examined
them, they take this case as a prece-
dent, and accept this reasoning. Such
is true of the state, OK rel. Thurston
county, against Grimes. IS Pacific, SOL
a Washington case; and Douglas coun-
~ against Jimmie, 40 n. w, 266. a Ne
braska case. The reasoning Of these de-
cisions is not satisfactory. and feel at
liberty to disregard their conclusions.
They establish q rule contrary TO the
ono which II was agreed by counsel I'm
Lloyd against Silver Bow county, nth
Montana, 40S. was the correct one of the
Ion NJ IA l. 9 |
section 81, article g. OF our constitution.
ana which the court in that case nc
cepted and seems TO have announced |
1t is a general rule of law that IL is |
competent for the legislature to IN |
crease or decrease the duties incumbent |
upon public officers and to increase and |
diminish their compensation I'm so far |
as it is not prohibited by the constitu-
ton OF the state. This has been abund- |
antly decided by our own courts as |
well as by multitude Of state and fed
eral courts, and IL needs no further dis |
cussion here. The question, however,
remains whether the provisions of sec
ton 81, article ). of the constitution ap-
plies 10 the office Of the appellant The
Office Is not one named i'm the oonstitu-
ton or directly created thereby: II OK
lists by legislative enactment under tho
power granted IN the constitution; II is
such an Office as that tho legislative as
sembly has absolute control over in it's
term and salary omOlun.ut. unless il |
has been restrained therein. Section 81.
article ., OF the constitution provides
that no law shah increase or decrease !
IN" salary or cmOlumnnts OF any public
officer after his election or appointment.
The question here involved must be de-
ermined under this section. ] am nm
able 20 perceive any distinction in the
application Of this section to an officer
named in and created by the constltu-
ion, such ms n sheriff, whose salary |
ma emoluments are not thereby fixed !
md an officer such as the appellant |
treated by the legislative assembly uu-
Ter constitutional authority. The desic- !
milton In section 81, article Of the con-
'ututon Is any public officer" II the I
appellant be public officer within the I
meaning of the term as used IN the
constitution. he is subject 70 It's provI-
lions and entitled 10 its benefits.
Every Office Is considered public. the
Iuues of which concern the public. \
'uhlic office may be created by the con
titution or by the legislative assembly. Z
inder its authority A public officer IS
ne who has some duty to perform con-
erning the public, and he Is not the J
ass a public officer when his duty is !
onined TO narorw limits, because II IS Z
ne duty and the nature Of that duty I
which makes him a public officer. and q
~ 'NNeAiN VI llln dAAllpIllN. W mere ]
n individual has been elected or ap- {
olnted in manner prescribed by law, 4
as general designation or title given 4
i'm by law and exercises functions con c
erninS the public assigned to him by
lw ne Is n public officer. An officer r
no derives his official character from ,
ne general law and the election of tho @
oople Of particular district. is a pub h
G officer. S
1t appears clearly that the appellant
a public officer, and as such IS pro-
'cted from change in his salary. fees
nj emolumcut, by the provisions OF
'cion 81. article Of tho constitution.
Judgment is therefore ordered In his -
lN"i ana AGAINST the respondent for n
De- amount in controversy in this &C "a
on, and for costs n