The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-16
QUESTIONS THE Law
NORTH HEM EXPLAINS THE
GROUNDS ON WHICH HE
THINKS
THE LAW OF '95 is INVALID.
ALLOWS THE COUNTY COMMITS
SIONERS MORE LATITUDE
THAN 1T SHOULD HAVE.
WHAT 1T HAS COST RAMSEY.
May Take Action to Test the Con-
stftutiOnaIity of the Law
What He Says.
THE LAW OF 's5 is INVALID.
WHAT 1T HAS COST, RAMSEY.

statements of citizen on matter or
vital importance to the county. This
was demonstrated at their meeting
yesterday, when, as reported in another
column, they applied the gag rule to
Moritz Helm, who desired to state his
reasons for believing that the law of
1895, authorizing the board of county
commissioners to reduce or fix the sal
aries Of county officers, is unconsti-
tutional Mr.. Helm appeared before
the board to ask that body to request
the attorney general to render an opin-
ion as to the constitutionality of the
law of 1896 Mr.. Helms objections to
the law, which are based not alone on
legal grounds, but upon "a state of
things" which the figures obtained by
Mr.. Helm from the county auditors Of
fee show, will be found interesting.
THE first objection I urge to the
act" said Mr.. Helm, lis that its title
is misleading. 1t purports on its face
to reduce the salaries. Under the fun
damental law the legislature cannot
delegate to the county commissioners
the power to fix the salaries of judi
cial officers and clerks of courts. Now,
then, the title of the act is clear. 1t
gives authority to the county commits
sioners in counties having popula-
ton of not less than 100000 nor more
than $4,000 to reduce the compensa-
ton and number of officers and other
employees and regulate the same, and
confers certain duties upon certain Of
fiCers, and prescribes a penalty for its
violation. But the body of the act con-
fers powers on county commissioners
to limit the salaries Of all county Of
ficers to $4,000 per year. Thus, while
under the old law each member OF the
county board was receiving $500 year,
under the law of 1896 the commissioners
claimed they had the authority to fix
their salaries at $4,000 per annum, if
they so desired, instead of reducing
them from $500 to $780, which, If they
made any change in their salaries
would have been the honorable course
for them to have pursued. Thus it
happens that the very evil which the
title of the act would appear to eradi-
cate can be quadrupled by the body of
the act. The fact that the county COM
missioners raised the salaries from $500
a year, a total annual appropriation of
81, 1OO to $3.50, which requires an eX-
VI SO,Z0U pei OtIilOIl-
strates the truth of this. The increase
of anybody's salary is not expressed
nor implied in the title of the act, and
hence there is a wide discrepancy be-
tween the title and the body of the
act"
MIR Helm also contends that the law
of 1895 comes under the head of special
legislation in that by it's terms it can
not possibly apply to any other than
Ramsey county, as it reads counties
with population of not less than 100,-
coo nor more than 1876, 000."
81 maintain further" continued Mr.
Helm. that the law of 1895 is against
public policy. 1t is monstrous, if the
county commissioners shall be permit
ted to fix their own salaries, with the
limit as high as $4,000 per annum 1t
is equally wrong to permit them to fix
the salaries of incoming officers for a
period of five years to come. They
might fix the salary of any official
against whom they bore a grudge at a
mere nominal figure. They are also
empowered to cut down the clerk hire
in each office to a minimum amount
They might cripple the public service
for five years.
But there is a still more glazing
defect in the new law. One section
provides that no salary, compensation
or emolument shall be paid out of any
county treasury of any such county
to any officer or employee thereof in
any other manner than us herein pre-
Vided.'
The words that no salary, colnpen-
sation or emolument shall be paid cut
of any county treasury in lieu o. the
salary, means, in plain English, that
whatever fees such officer may col
lect he may keep in his own pocket.
There is nothing in the law of 1895 to
prevent a former feed officer from
keeping the fees he collects in addition
to his salary and clerk-hire. The sec
ton [ quoted means that such officer
shall have no further claim on the
county for services rendered to snch
county.
ut is true that the county commits
sioners passed a resolution last Deem
Der making it COMPULSORY upon each
county officer, who collects fees. to
turn them over to the county treas
urer and show a receipt therefor be-
fore he will be permitted to draw his
salary, but the law of 1895 doesn't re-
quire it, and, therefore, the resolution
is nugatory, in my opinion. A county
official inclined to be tricky could. after
serving two or three terms, sue the
county for the return of the fees de-
posted by him in the county treas
ury, and plead that he deposited the
money under the compulsi3n Of the
resolution, and the county would be
liable, like any bank with whom mon
ey is left on deposit
Referring to the action of the pre-
ceding board of county commissioners
in raising their salaries, Mr. Helm
said: I'm passing the resolution rails
ing their salaries from $500 to $3.50 a
year. the county commissioners re-
clause which would have prohibited
them from also drawing salaries az
members Of the board of equalization. |
Joint court house and city hall COM
mission"
In conclusion, Mr.. Helm declared
that it must be admitted that the act
of 1895 was working disastrously to the |
county in financial way To dem
onstrate this, Mr.. Helm exhibited tab
ulated statements made up of figures
obtained by him from the auditors
office.
Taking first the county officers. Who
have always been on a salary basis. |
the first table shows the various
allowed each in 1896 and in
1897. Then follow the financial state
ments of the departments that were
formerly operated on the fee system:
1885, 1897
County auditor s12 ono sill son |
County treasurer ................ L, 600 11575 |
County assessor ................ $500 $500 |
County attorney ................ 5000 $500 |
County surveyor ................ 400 **7O6 |
County commissioners ......... 2100 $3.50