The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1897-10-29
THOSE sTRSOGRAPHER's FEES.

| OF bne OeSt lawyers III WSSCefu hdHSdS
and hence we cannot believe that while
be rs-asserts the charge that judge
Andrews assisted the stenographer il
obtaining 50 more for services than hi
was entitled to, that he himself be
lieyes what he asserts. The state
ments made in this Graphic, last week
in relation to this matter are absolute
ly correct. The State Auditor has
stated that no stepograPher's fees will
be paid until after Jan. l, 1898. and
the Attorney General has rendered ar
opinion which we print below. Judge
Clark. republican, in the district
east OF US, is conforming to this opin'
ion, hence we say again that We are al
loss to understand how neighbor
Smiths party zeal comes to carry him
80 far, for as An attorney he knows
that the opinion of the attorney gener-
al which we print below is absolutely
correct. The following is the text OF
the attorney general's opinion furnish
ed the auditor Of state, who, in res
ponse to an inquiry on this point from
Judge Spillman. Of Manhatten, had
asked for an opinion from the attor-
ney generals Office.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY CENTRAL,
| TOPEKA, KAs., AUG. IA, 1897.
w. r, Spillmap. Manhattan, Kas.
DEAR SIR: Your communication of
Aug. a. hand in reference to the fees
OF district court stenographers. In
reply will say, thatthe last legislature
in section 1S of chapter l31, provides
that court stenographers for district
courts shall be allowed as compensa-
tion for their services salary of $3.50
per appum, payable from the state
treasury in monthly installments at
the end OF each month, and the title of
and salaries of certain officials therein
named"
! am satisfied that the title of this
act is broad enough under our consti-
tuition to make the act in reference to
the compensation to be paid district
court stenographers legal, but this
law, according to its own terms, will
not 60 into effect until the second Mon
day in January. 1898. the last legisla-
ture also attempted to fix the compen-
sation of distric. court stenographers,
in chapter No, 20, and it provides that
che sum of 81 900 is appropriated out
of the state treasury for the year end
ing June 30, 1889, for the payment of
the official stepOgrapheps in the dis
| triet and circuit courts, to be divided
as follows; Each official stenographer
shall be entitled to compensation for
his services the sum of S. per day
while: actually employed in steno-
graphic work in open court, and up
ON the presentation of certificate
from the Judge OF said. court to the
state auditor, certifying that the Ste
nographer has been employed a spe-
cifiG number of days at a particular
term of the court, the auditor shall
draw his voucher in favor of said
stenographer upon the state treasurer
for the payment of the same. The
title OF said act is San act making
appropriation for the executive and
judicial departments of the state for
theHscal years ending June 80, 1898,
and June 80, $780,"
!. Section No. 16 of Article II of the
constitution of this state provides tina,
mo bill shall contain more than one
subject. which shall be clearly ex.
pressed in the title" and the supreme
court of this state has indicated by
his DECISIONS that the title must be the
index finger which points to the sub
ject contained in the law itself.
II is asserted in the American ani
, English Encyclopaedia, vol. %, a
page 232, that it may be said, gener
ally. that SO much of the statute as i
broader than the title is void under
2 these provisions of the constitution
e Now, take it that there is nothing il
1 this title that would indicate to tn
Y average mind that the legislature in
tnndea to repeal a law which had es
: tablished the salaries of court ste
e nographers. In fact, l think l an
warranted in saying, after CAREFUL,
Y reading said title, that there is moth
: ing in it of any kind or characte
y that would direct the most attentiv
a mind to the fact that the legislatur
D intended he enact a law repaaling tn
:, salaries of court stenographers an,
y fixing them at a different rate. Thi
0 being true, it 9nquestionahly follow
s that that portion of the law fixing tn
5 compensation of a court stanographe
n at IS per day is unconstitutional an
of no binding force, This being true
the further question arises whether tn
y auditor of the state would be author
). lied to draw his warrant in favor G
e the stenographer and pay him
}. monthly salary as is now provided b
K law. | am clearly of the opinion tha
q he would, for the reason that the al
4 preparation was made for the expires
purpose of paying the court stem OF
- raphers that which was due them a
= the law provided, and that is $3.50
g year after the law goes into force fl,
ID ing their salaries. as above stated