The Arizona sentinel., 1897-04-10
RE- -ESTABLISHMEST oF SALARIES
 E0T X VAHiD ACT.
Imposed Obligations That Were Not
 Contracted.

ln reply to letter from W. G. Blakey, district attorney of Mohave county, J. F. Wilson, attorney-gen- eral of Arizona, renders the follow ing opinion on the law passed by the nineteenth legislature, re-instat- ing salaries of county officials:
 Hon. ". G. Blakely, Kinghan, Arizona.
 My DEAR SIR;-YourS of the Both, ut, asking my opinion of the late law on'the subject of re-instating the salaries of county officers, is to hand and duly noted.
 In reply thereto I have to inform you that 1t is my opinion that the law is invalid. Tbatit was an as sumption of authority, arbitrary in its nature, not possessed by the leg islative arm of the government.
 1 maintain this opinion because the act, if enforced, compels the counties toipay obligations they did not owe. It imposes obligations on them which they did not owe, and compels their payment, without their consent. This is tantameunt to making contracts for the counties and compelling payment without their having any lot or part in it. This is beyond the power of leg islation. If it is, then can they be compelled to pay obligations i'm posed on them by the sheer assump- tion of the declation of legislative will which they did not owe under existing laws before. In a word, can the legislature speak obligation into existence and compel payment without their consent, actior, or approva!P I think certainly not. Such a power is not contemplated under the fair interpretation of our institutions It would therefore be un-American. and should be de- clared void.
 It may be insisted that there was a kind of indebtedness existing on account of the legal salary being that sum at date of election. l apprehend it will be so contended If so, the reply to it is: The leg islature has the power to reduce or to raise salaries during the term of the incumbent, and the receipt of the amount so fixed during that term is complete payment, and wipes out every scintilla of existing indebtedness. It leaves nothing In the nature of an obligation behind it. This is so. in the case of ac- counts filed against county govern ments. When an account is made and filed, be 1t large or small, and the same IS allowed in a sum far below that claimed if the payee takes the amount, whether under protest or not, he can never recover the balance in any court in the country. This is the decided law here and elsewhere. This principal was declared in the O'Neil case decided by our supreme courst sev- eral years ago; and it followed the settled law on that subject in the several states. Then, how can it be lawfully claimed that there was any kind of obligation existing, either legal or equitable, which the legislature could provide for pay ment? If there had been any kind ,of obligation, for the payment of which provision was not made, the legislature might well make it. But where none exists, then the legisla- ture can impose none-cannot generate it-speak it into existence so to speak, and compel it's pay ment, and allow the counties that must foot the bill, to have no say lot, or part in it. Such is not the meaning of American law. It could not be in harmony with the intent of American institutions. and there fore, would be contrary to free government.
 I have the honor to be, with the highest regards, your ohedient ser want, J. F. WILSON,
 Attorney-general 1