The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-16
ENTITLED TO HIS SALARY
MIR. ANDERSON SECURES A FAVOR
ABLE DECISION
But County Auditor Sullivan De-
cides That He Will Not Pay Any
thing Until the Supreme Court
Says SO-TeXt of Judge Lewis
Finding In the Case.

Judge Lewis HleQ MS decision III tHe
matter yesterday. If Dennis Sullivan
of Judge Lewis, he would have at once
drawn a warrant for the payment of
Samuel Andersons salary for the
months of December, 1897, and January
and February, 1898, on the basis OF
$500 per annum.
But "Dinnie" Sullivan comes Of pug
nacious stock. He thinks Judge Lewis
is wrong, and his attorney, Harris
Richardson, accordingly appealed to
down last evening.
Failing to get any salary under the
law of 1885, which gives the county at
torney $4,000 year, Mr.. Anderson Sc
cured an alternative writ of mandamus
requiring Mr.. Sullivan to issue war
rant in his favor for the payment OF
the salary allowed by chapter 1863 of
the Special Laws of 1887.
In opposition, Mr.. Sullivan contended
that chapter 1863, Special Laws of 1887,
is unconstitutional, and that the salary
and compensation of the county attor-
ney has been fixed by the board of
county commissioners, pursuant to
chapter 301 of the General Laws of 1898,
and that he Is not entitled to compen-
sation otherwise than as therein pro-
vided
county attorney and orders per-
emptory writ Of mandamus to issue
forthwith. The reasons for the order
are stated in the following memoran-
dunn:
The answer of the respondent, Sullivan,
to the petition of the relator, Anderson,
presents two questions
First-Shall the county attorney be per
mitted to draw his salary under Chap: 36s.
Special Laws of 1897 when in fact his
salary has been fixed by resolution Of the
board of county commissioners, pursuant
to Chap. 301. General Laws of 1895, which
prior legislation existing at the time of
its passage, including this law of 1897?
This question must be answered in the mega
tive, provided the so-called salary act Of
1895 is valid. For if valid the law of 1895
repeats the law of 1897, and if so repealed
the county attorney cannot draw salary
Hereunder; but this court has held in the
case of Simard VS.. Sullivan, ct al, de-
cided Jan. 90 1898 (file No. 1882, that Chap.
3O1 of the General Laws of 1895, is valid
and until that decision is overruled 1t must
be followed and so controls the question
raised. For if the saary act OF 1888 IS IN
valid, then Chap. 1863 of the Special Laws
of 1897 is the only existing law purportng
to fix the salary of the county attorney
and upon this law must the county at
torney, for the present, rely.
Seconds the act under which the county
attorney seeks to draw his salary in this
proceeding (being Chap. 1868, Special Laws
1880, valid?
Several sections in this act are pointed
out as embracing subjects entirely out
side of and beyond the scope of the title
so much SO, il is urged, as to render the
entire act void under this constitutional
provision.
The title refers to IAN act to establish the
salaries of certain officers of Ramsey coun-
ty," and it is claimed there is fatal vari-
ance between the act and the title in the
following particulars:
(a) In section 2, where the act fixes fees
for the clerk of the district court, instead
of a salary.
Cb) In section 8, where the act fixes the
salary of the city and county physician
not a county office, respondent claims
(c) In the same section where it fixes
the term Of Office of the same official.
(d) In section 4, where the act provides
for the appointment Ct clerk of the board
of control, such clerk not being county
official under the, contention of respondent.
(e) In section 6, where the act fixes the
per diem Of the committee on roads appoint
ed by the county commissioners,
IL In regulating the food for prisoners,
in section T.
(g) In providing for the appointment Of
an abstract clerk and fixing his term Of
office, in section 8.
1t must be admitted that section 1, of this
act, clear and complete in itself, fixing the
salary of the county attorney and cera. n
other county officers, comes fairly within
and embraces the subject expressed in the
title of the act, and cannot be criticised as
being broader than the title. 1t follows,
then, that section l must be held valid I'M
less it is vitiated by other provisions in the
act which requires US to hold the entire act
invalid. Assuming without SO deciding,
that some Of the remaining sections Ct this
act are invalid, as urged by the respondent,
the question then follows, to what extent
and when will an act be declared void by
reason Of certain portions Of the act being
invalid?
Cooley. in his work on constitutional
Limitations" sixth edition, page 30, decla es
the law to be that where part of
statute is unconstitutional that fact dces not
authorize the court to declare the remainder
void also, unless al the provisions are con-
nected in subject matter depending on each
other, operating together for the same pur-
pose, or otherwise Sd connected together in
meaning that it cannot be presumed the
legislature would have passed the one with
out the other. The constitutional and I'M
constitutional provisions may even be con-
tanned in the same section and yet be per-
fectly distinct and separable SO that the
first may stand though the last may fall
Again. he says, page 211: If. when the
unconstitutional portion is stricken out, that
which remains is complete in itself and
capable Of being executed in accordance
with the apparent legislative intent, wholly
independent of that which was rejected, it
must be sustained
Again, at page III: "If by striking from
the act all that relates to the object not in
dictated by the title, that which is left is
complete in itself, sensible, capable of be-
ing executed, and wholly Independent of
that which is rejected, it must be sustained
as constitutional
NE law Is, IL dH dcl Is pIodueT tldH us
title the part covered by the title may stand
while the act fails as to the subjects not ex
pressed in the title.
1t is my view that the parts of this act
not covered by the title are so nearly sepa-
rate and distinct from section l that they
can be fairly rejected, and there will still
remain a complete and sensible enactment
capable of being executed fixing the salary
of the county attorney and the other county
officers therein mentioned.
1t is objected that the several provisions
of this act are so intimately connected and
dependent upon each other as to warrant the
belief that each was considered as an in
ducement or compensation by the lesisla-
ture for the passage Of the others, and In
the absence of one of those provisions the
legislature would not have passed the 9TH
ers. In other words, had the legislators
known certain of these provisions 10 have
been void would they have passed the rest?
The question whether one provision of an
act was a consideration in the minds of the
legislators which induced them to pass the
remaining provisions is a question both de-
icate and dangerous. The only evidence Is
in the form Of differences drawn from
careful study of the separate provisions with
reference to their relation and connection
with each other, and the rule sought to be
invoked must be cautiously applied, other
utary enactments; and the safe rule of con-
struction seems to require that it shall
clearly appear that the object Of the act
was designed by the legislature to be ac-
complished through provisions claimed to be
invalid before a court will be justified in
assuming that the void provision was the
consideration in the mind of the legislature
for the passage of the valid provisions and
1t is view that section / of this act is
n1n fhn