The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-06-25

Text OF the Recent supreme Court De-
cision in the Matter
Tire following Is a fun text % the rscen.
decision % the supreme court o. -ass state.
denying the right OF county commission
ers 20 charge mileage for tfle distance
Travelled while performing their Official
duties:
The question involved In this case Is
whether county commissioners in counties
Of the third class can recover mileage
from the county ar the rate OF 10 cents
for each mile Travelled in the discharge
o. the duties imposed by the statute. or
any mileage az all. in addition 10 the per
diem and allowance o. r.
ct Is conceded hv the appellant that
the Iaw Of 1880 laws Of 1880. page
rs par. q which provides that the coun-
" commissioners in all aNunties shah re-
csivs s. per day for each day employed
IN performance Of their duties. If con-
strIed literally. would prevent the recov-
cry 81 mileage by the county commission
err. but II Is Insisted that this statute.
when considered With reference 20 the his
tory OF the legislation on this subject, Is
susceptible Of another construction. The
Law OF lsss-se above referred 10 Is entitled
An act classifying the counties accord
ing 10 population enumerating the coan-
~ officers fixing the salaries thereof
and payment OF salaries and the repeal
ing clause Is 10 the effect that All laws
or parts OF laws in conflict with this act
are hereby repealed
'Tt would seem that an act which ex-
pressly declared that its purpose was 20
FIX the salaries OF county officers. and
which did fix them upon a different basis
from that on which they had been fixed
hy a prior law and which declares that
s.s<
shall be repealed, would work a repeal
OF all acts Sxlng the compensation OF
county officers which are in any way IN
conflict with the com pensation fixed By
the act Itself: and 10 determine whether
these respective provisions In relation TO
compensation are In conflict, II Is only
necessary TO determine whether or not
the compensation In the one is more or
less than the compensation fixed in the
other.
Under the law OF 1854 which Is the
earliest enactment on the subject. the
county commissioners were entitled TO
receive 81 per day for each day neces-
sarily employed in transacting the bust
ness OF the county, and IS cents per mile
for every mile Travelled In going 10 and
returning from the meetings OF said
board. or In the discharge of any official
duty. This law was changed in 1859 laws
of 1859. p. so4. par. 81. 10 read as follows:
The county commissioners shall each
receive s. per day for each and every day
they NAV be necessarily employed in trans
acting the business OF the county. and Is
cents per mile for every mile Travelled In
going 10 and returning from the meetings
Of said board or In the discharge of any
official duty
1T viii be noticed that 1t was thought
necessary by the legislature in changing
the per diem from g TO s., TO also enact
that the commissioners should be entitled
10 the mileage OF Is cents per mile. which
was the same mileage provided for in the
act of 1854
The act of 1850 was entitled An act to
provide for the election of county COM
missioners and defining their duties In
1881 ecode of 1881. p. 4si. par. 2ssol the law
In regard TO compensation of county COM
missiouers was again changed 10 the ef-
feet that the county commissioners shall
each receive 81 per day for each and every
day they may be necessarily employed in
transaeting the business Of the county.
and 10 cents per mile for every mile trav-
eled in going 70 and returning from the
meetings of said board. or in the dis
charge OF any Official duty This Is the
law relied upon by the appellant 20 suS-
tain his contention that he is entitled 10
mileage
Whatever the law may have been prior
TO 1900. ii seems conclusive 10 our minds
that the intention OF the act of 1880 was to
establish an Independent compensation for
county commissioners. and that, when
this compensation was established at s.
per day without a provision for mileage.
10 must be concluded even according TO
the appellant the benefit Of All the canons
of construction which he has invoked.
that IL was the intent of the legislature
that the per diem should be the exclusive
compensation of the commissioner. and
that the mileage allowed by the former
acts was not intended TO be carried for
ward into the new.
1T Is insisted by the appellant that the
legislative construction has been placed
upon the act Of 1890 by rar. q page sas
OF the Laws of 1875. where the legislature
provided for a board OF construction and
further provided that such board should
be allowed the same mileage as Is allowed
county commissioners for necessary trave,
In the discharge Of their duties, and
should not be otherwise paid for their
services.
''Ff the act which we are called upon 70
construe had been conteurporaneous with
the act quoted, the legislative construction
would have more effect, but IL seems 10
rs plain that the legislature az 1879 was
1egiSlsting in ignorance Of what the law
in relation 10 the compensation OF county
commissioners really was. and that II can
have no force in constituting the act OF an
other ana prior legislature.
The case OF Cox VS.. Holmes. ~ Pae.,
-. we 10 not think IS Ia point We are
satisfied that under the law as IL ncpw
exists the commissioner IS rot entitled 70
mileage under any circumstances
The Judgment Of the lower court Will
therefore be affirmed
DUNBAR. J"
We concur:
"H0YT, c. J.
SCOTT. J.