The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-07

Justices and Constables Win
Their Cases in the State
Supreme Court.
Gen sral Joy Among Township Officers
Who Decided in Convention
to Test the Law.

The case of William Dryer against w.
f. Parker, Auditor of Santa Clara County,
and also the case of Edward Haley against
w. F. Parker were decided in the Supreme
Court yesterday. These cases brought
into question the constitutionality of the
fee bill. Dryer claimed SAL fees due him
as a Justice of the Peace, and Haley
claimed fees as constable The court de-
cided the first case in favor of DwyeE
The other case followed the decision in the
Dwyer case.
Justice Henshaw, writing the opinion,
found that the question involved was the
constitutionallty of the act entitled "An
act to establish the fees of county and
township officers and other officials and
of jurors and witnesses within this State. !"
The act OF 1895 proceeded to establish fees
which justices of the peace may charge
and collect, but limited the amount which
they may retain as follows: For all ser
vices rendered in criminal action or pro-
ceeding, whether on examination or trial,
So, provided that no more than the su m OF
$75 shall be allowed out of the county
treasury in misdemeanor cases to any one
justice.
Counsel for Dryer claimed that these
stiiutional, and that they are inseparable
parts of the whole act, which must there
fore be declared invalid. Justice Hen
shaw did not take this sweeping view OF
the matter. He found that certain parts
of the act are unconstitutional. The
county government act, which was passed
by the Legislature IN 1888, provided for
classifying counties according to popula-
ton and regulated the compensation of
ali oot1rtv opd town Chi =, otficarS accord inc
to their duties.
ut is apparent" said Justice Henshaw.
that the county government act OF 1893
and the act of 1895, to establish the fees OF
county and township officers, both under
take 10 fix the com pensation OF Justices OF
the Peace and Constables, and there is no
conflict between the provisions in this re-
gard.
1.-The constitution has provided that the
Legislature shall regulate the CO mpensa-
ton OF all county and towns hip officers in
proportion to the duties that they may
perform. The conviction is irresistible
that the constitution has fixed single
mode which must be adopted or followed
in fixing the compensation OF officers, and
that mode is to adjust the compensation
in accordance with their respective duties,
under a classification OF counties by popu-
lation made for this purpose"
Further on Justice Henshaw said that
the Legislature is forbidden to pass any
local or special law affecting fees Or sala-
r1es OF any officer. BY the act of 1895 the
Legislature, unmindiul of this constitu-
tional provision, passed law applicable
to all county and township officers, declar-
ing the amount of fees which they were
entitled to charge and collect from the
citiz n for the performance of their speci-
fed duties. But in the instances enumer-
ated it attempted to go further than this,
and to fix or regulate the compensation of
offenses TO the classification made in the
county government act of 1898. This is
far beyond the power of the Legislature
to do, and the provisions OF the act which
undertake to do this are illegal and in
valid.
The Justice did not find, however, that
the whole act is void. With certain excep-
tons it remains a full and complete tee
bill. The contention of Dryer that his
compensation is regulated by the county
government act was found to be sound,
Justices Harrison, Van Vleet, Mcfarland
and Temple concurred.