The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-31
WHERE THEY WE'RE BEFORE THE
LAW OF 1895 TOOK
EFFECT.
so is ANDERSON'S ADVICE
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM
MISSIONERS IN HIS OPINION
OF YESTERDAY.
County Attorney Anderson Considers
the Measure of 1895 Invalid,
and He So Advises.

County Attorney Anderson has rem
dered an opinion concerning the mat
ter of county officers salaries, in which
he holds that the resolutions of the
county commissioners passed by viz
tue of the law of 1895 are invalid, init
mates pretty strongly that the law it.
self is unconstitutional, and advises
the county auditor to refuse to draw
warrants for the salaries of any coun-
ty official whose compensation has
been increased by said resolutions. The
county auditor is also instructed that
he has no right to pay the sheriff and
the register of deeds or their clerks or
deputies any salaries, inasmuch as, In
the opinion of the county attorney,
the resolution changing these two Of
fees from a fee to salary basis Is
invalid, as the law of 1895 did not en-
power the county board to make any
such changes.
The opinion Of the county attorney
was called forth at the request of
County Attorney Sullivan. who desired
instructions as to what course he
should pursue relative to the payment
of the salaries of County Commissioner
Moritz and County Surveyor Gates A.
Johnson. Suits were pending in each
of these cases to enjoin the county au-
ditor from issuing warrants for the
payment of the salaries of these Of
ficials. The county attorneys opinion
In full is as follows:
In view Of two actions now pending, one
against John H. Moritz, county commissioner,
and one aginst Gates A. Johnson Jr., coun-
ty surveyor, in each of which you are join
ed as defendant, wherein injunctions are
asked to prevent payment of salaries to
those officials, you have requested nv opin-
ION as to your duties as to the payment of
such salaries before decisions are rendered.
You have also asked that l define the pow
ers OF the county commissioners with refer
ence to raising salaries of county officials
and changing officers heretofore on fee basis
to salaried offices.
Assuming chapter 3O1, General Laws 1895,
under which the county commissioners acted
to be unconstitutional land as to that 1 offer
no opinion), the title of that act reads in
substance that the county commissioners of
certain counties are authorized and direct
ed to reduce the compensation and number
or officers and other employees of such coun-
ties and regulate the same" etc. Article
4, section Il, Constitution of Minnesota, pro-
Vides that no law shall embrace more than
one subject, which shall be embraced in it's
title" Hence we must assume that the above
title embraces the subject and that 1t was
the design of the legislature to empower the
county commissions to reduce the compensa-
ton and number of officers and employees of
their county.
You inform me that the county commission
ers of Ramsey county did, by resolution
passed in December, 1896, raise the compensa-
ton of the succeeding board of county com
missioners from $500 per year each to $3.50
per year each. In my opinion, they had no.
power to raise such salaries, but only power
to reduce and the resolution was void for
that reason. The same rule applies to the
office of surveyor, If, in fact, the attempt
was made to increase the compensation of
that officer. Being invalid, it is your duty
to refuse to act under such resolution with
out regard to the question whether actions
have been commenced or not to test their
validity. While you presumed to act
under and obey a statutory enactment so
long as the same has not been declared in
valid or unconstitutional, yet you should not
act under an invalid act or order of a coun-
ty official
You also inform me that the county COM
miSSionerS attempted, by resolution passed
during the same month of December, 1896, to
change the offices of register of deeds and
sheriff from fee to salary basis In my
opinion, said chapter 301 General Laws 1895
conferred no power on said board to make
any such changes. There is nothing in the
title of said act limiting at any such &C
ton, and, in my judgment, you have no right
to pay those officials any salaries under such
resolution rather, to issue warrants for
such salaries, nor to issue warrants for sal
aries to any deputy or clerk in said Offices,
for the reason that the county did not pay
them salaries prior to such resolution, they
all being paid by the register of deeds and
sheriff respectively from such emolument as
accrued to said officers. Nor is il possible
to say that the compensation Of either officer
or any deputy has been reduced for one
reason, at least, that no certain compensation
had ever been fixed for any one by law. The
register Of deeds and sheriff made what they
could out Of their fees and paid their en-
ployes as they saw fit. There are other
reasons, but this one is sufficient to note
at this time Whether or not the board
could have passed proper resolution as to
the compensation to be paid those officials,
it is not necessary to discuss. Suffice to say
that they did not.
the time, wherein a reduction was made in
the compensation Of salaried officers and en-
ployes. In my opinion you are empowered
to recognize such resolutions as valid. At
any rate, such officers and employees ems
titled to the reduced compensation, although
more might, be due them if the resolution
was invalid or the law unconstitutional. So
long as they accept the reduction it is your
duty to issue warrants accordingly.
1 may be pardoned in making few COM
ments on the so-called salary law of 1895.
There can be no question that the title and
the body of the act radically different.
AS an illustration the title empowers reduc-
act attempts to empower the board to fix
the compensation of all officers and en-
ployeS, whether on a fee or salary basis.
Again, while the employees Of many offices
were paid and employed by the head of the
office, the attempt is made to make such
employees come entirely under the control
of the county, and to have the county pay
them directly. 1t is also expressly provided
that hereafter the county commissioners shall
control the payment of the clerks of courts
and his employees, whereas the constitution
provides that the qualifications, duties and
compensation of the clerk shall be prescribed
by law. That does not mean, in my judg
ment, that the legislature can delegate such
power to local officers The same rule ap-
plies to the probate judge Then again, while
the attempt is made to change Offices to a
salary basis, there is absolutely no pro-
vision as to disposition of fees collected by
such officers. For example, the sheriff re-
ceives his salary from the county and also
all the deputies and clerks are paid by the
county, and yet nothing is said as to what
the sheriff shall do with the fees received
by law from private individuals, in this coun-
ty, amounting to large sums in the aggregate
1t is without question, highly desirable that
compensation of a public officer and of en-
ployes be regulated and fixed at a reasonable
amount, and that the county should have
the benefit of the income of any public
office, where it is in excess of what is
reasonable compensation for the employees Of
that office. But the law in question fails far
short Of attaining that end The law is also
vicious in that it attempts to place it within
the power of local officers to cut a salary
to any minimum sum they see fit. Such a
power is dangerous in the extreme.
You will understand that all the acts done
under this law ante-dated the term of my
incumbency of this office, and that at no