Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-03-06
sALlmls or COUNTY OFFICIALS.

SALAHlLS OF COUNTY OFFICIALS.
The question Of salaries Of county
DfIlcefs Il causing considerable discu-.
sion among members Of the Logisla-
tufe, with no Immediate prospect that
sUttlom, MT will be reached On present.
lines aud Within Constitutional re-.
t.'ciions. In IT, Efforts 10 iiE amounts
10 be paid to county employees the
committee classified the counties, Of
which there are twcniy.Hcven In the
State, Into fifteen classes, which would
seem TO be sufficient Tor ell purposes
that could be reaobsdby such asyslom.
Yet this did not prove satisfactory, ne
It was claimed that by this plan some
counties which by the olassiflcatlon
rulo, whether on population or prog.
sfty valuation, were placed In y stated
class would not bo able TO pay the
salary which would be proper Ia an.
other county In the same rank. Astp
the various Claina on this point, the
NEwB does not propose 10 question
their accuracy, believing, ~ W" do,
that the Issues arc we'll taken, IN most
cases At leatt; but we feel that sug.
gestion on the subject may be Of use In
indicating a way out Of the dilemma.
The Constitution provides that the
officers referred 10 shall be paid fixed
nnd definite salaries. Il does not mol.
cate whether the amounts shall be-
iTed by thu Legislature, or by any
board, county commissioners OF other
wise, that the Legislature may pro-
vide. II IL lott TO the legislative body
OF the State to determine what the
procedure shall he; but IL eject Il
definitely stated. Under this provision,
the lawmskers may AuthorlLs county
commissioners to name tho amounts,
provided these are not placed on
a sliding scale which would elm
lnaio the definite feature. A plan
giving tho county commissioners auoh
power would have to restrict them 30
salaries could not be changed except
within certain limits.
For the Legislature, however, to ia
the salaries In certain counties ana not
In others would be a maniieslly unfair
discrimination In exercising legisla.
tive control Asa matter OF govern.
mental principle, tho county com.
missioners Of Salt Lake have ~ much
claim TO the privilege Of fix.
ing salaries Of county Ciiloer-
- have those Of Garfield; and the law
should make no distinction In this re-.
gard unle,s II Ia an absolute necessity,
which does not appear TO bo the case
IN this instAHco.
We do not forget that the proposed
salary measure provides that the State
shall pay one.hali the salaries Of Ger.
tain county oiilcors, aud that the State
Legislature cAnBot feel that II Il tho
proper thing Tor county commissioners
to regulate the expenditure Of Stats
funds. Win thio feature eliminated,
the subject might be left to tho
counties, but certainly not otherwise.
Ito retention, however, stcms 10
offer solution OF the vrIeI problem.
On Ito plan OF county Classification, the
Legislature could name, instead u
giving proportion " niy percent Of
the salary, ths amount 10 be paid out
NJ the State Treasury to any county
oiiictr, based on this nny percent idea
as near as II could 90 applied. Then 1t
could provide tIsI ths respective boards
Of county commissioners shall -stcr.
mine the amount TO be pail by tee
counties, which amount shall mot &.
coed that paid by the state to the same
afiroui or the aggregate sums Tor
rtiiceTs which the State does not paw.
Thus ali counties could betreatrd alike.
Such plan would sayo o.ch county
from being required to provide NOR,
for salaries than II co4ls nfusl Fol
some instances the SBtu miglt ue
paying more than half NJ an 0licrts
salary, because ~ the lower amount
fixed for the County's compensation.
But that heXIbllty OF the plan would |
be q benefit to the counties most re-.
curing II, while the state would he
pnylug GKed sud dttuilu salaries ff |
It's portion " the work duvDlvlnE on
such uilicefs, aud would be- equally a. |
well OIL ~ under either NJ the other |
plans. The various counties would be- |