Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-04-02

1llt S'tidiS vi Tic oStltttdt vi
State of $4,000 was fixed by said Act
OF 1891 long prior to the commence
The compensation allow ed the Clerk
as reporter of said decisions was fixed
by said Act of 1898. The Act of 1898
in making the Secretary of State ex-
ofhcio Clerk of the Supreme Court
fixed the realtors compensation as
Reporter of said decisions, two years
prior to REALTORS term of office. The
said salary or said compensation fixed
for the term OF Office to which relator
has been elected has IN no anne
been changed; hence, Sec. 9, Art. XIV
of the Constitution does not Justify
the respondents refusal to draw said
warrant.
It is further contended for respon-
dent: THAT the action of the Legis-
lature in appropriating the Il of
$1,000 for relator S services as Repo1-
ter Of the decisions of the Supreme
Court during the years 1895 and 1896
"a i'll direct violation of the Con-
stitution." And Sec. 5. Art. XVII of
the Constitution is cited, which pro-
vIdes certain salaries for the several
State officers for the first term of
office succeeding the formation OF The
State government, among which
officers the Secretary of State is
named, and said Section provides:
"NO officer mentioned in this Section
shall receive any fee or perquisites
to his OWE use for the performance of
any duty connected with his office, or
for the performance of any additional
duty imposed upon him by law"
In State Elk Rel Cutting ,Superinten-
dent of Public Instruction, VS.. c. A.
LaGrave, State Controller, 49,, Pac.
Rep. 47o; ~ New. The Court said:
The office Of Superintendent, and
the various ex.o1icio offices mention
ed in these statutes, are each a seper-
ate and distinct office, and their
being vested III the same person does
not change their nature in this re-
spect."
The Court cited: State VS.. Laugh
ton, 70 New, 2o2; People VS.. Durick,
20 Cal. 81; Kinsey VS.. kellogg, IS
Cal. III,
Under the above authorities the
offices of Secretary of State, of ex-
officio Clerk of the Supreme Court
and the office of Reporter of the de
cisions of the Supreme Court are
separate and distinct offices, and
their being vested in the same person
does not change their nature in this
respect.
If it was permissible under the
constitution for the Legislature to
confer upon the Secretary of State a
seperate and distinct office charged
with separate and distinct duties, in
40 way naturally pertaining to the
duties of the Secretary's office, and
he peformes these duties, we are of
the opinion that there is no provision
of the Constitution that prohibits the
Legislature from providing for pay
ing for said services. Glove,
Attorney General VS.. Bacher, AZ Cal.
564.)
In Crossman VS.. Nightingale, I
New. 323, Lewis, c. J., speaking fo1
the Court, said: The constitutional
restriction imposed by Sec. 9, Art
XIV, and Sec. 80, Art. ", is doubt.
less intended only to prevent the in
crease of salary or compensation O
officers, as such officers, or for dutie:
naturally belonging to their post
ions, and can scarcely be extended t.
, prevent the allowance of a compensa
: ton to officers upon whom duties O
responsibilities in no wise connected
/ with their Offices are imposed. x x
1T would be putting a construction
too restricted upon the constitutional
n limitation to hold hat the provision
winch prohibits the increase of sal
airy or compensation would proven
the holding of two offices by tn
same person, or the receipt of tn
:. salary of both by the same individ
ual.
# I'VE think the limitation in Art
XIV, Sec. 9 and Art. ", Sec. 81
Il should be confined to the increase c
S salary or compensation for the dis
5 charge of duties naturally belongjn
Il n nnrtu.., % &C., al rl,n,,1I .,nt A..