The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-29

But no salaFee
And he cusseth by day and by night
Mr.. TheophihIs White, who was lein,
stated in the office of oyster inspect-
or by the Supreme court when it flushed
a coyey of political decisions q week ago.
came to town yesterday.
Theophilus was not quite happy. The
act of 1899 changed the salary OF the
office awarded him by the court, reduc-
ing it from $50 per month 10 $50 per
month.
The Supreme court has henignly
said 1t would permit the legislature to re-
duce the salary of am incumbent ~ an
office, though it can NOT turn him out.
Theophilus failed to ask in his com
plant that the court say whether he was
entitled to S75 per month, the salary of
his old office. or $50, the salary of the
office into which the coutt indicted
him. And that is the source of
Theophilus' woe. When he limited to
Father Worth that the pungent taste of
pie would be pleasant to his palate he
met the bland enquiry, (Which piece
Philo. me boy?'
The big piece, the $75 kind" respond
cd Philo. But Father Worth said May.
nay, Philo," and asked the Attorney
General which salary he ought t., pay
over The latter replied that it would be
best to Diet the courts decide, as appears
below. And Philo got no salary.
When Mr.. White was asked yester-
day what he would do he replied that he
would begin an action at once to compel
the State Treasurer by mafidamus to
lay over his old salary. This is now
his only recourse unless he is willing to
accept the $50 salary which the Treas
urer would be safe in paying in any
case. This he lis at present unwilling to
do.
The opinion OF Attorney General Wal
ser in the case is as follows:
Nov. 2S, 1899.
Hon. W. III. Worth, State Treasurer:
Sir: In reply to your communication
of the Dist inst requesting my opinion
relative to the payment of the salary of
Theo White. Chief Oyster Inspector nm
der acts 1897, chapter 13, / will say that
chapter p, acts 1899, forhidding the
State Treasurer to pay officers claim
ing under the abolished act of 1899 is
clearly Unconstitutional In White VS.
Fill, at the present term of the Supreme
court. it has been held that White is en-
titled to the office of chief inspector UNI
der the acts Of 1897. As the Legislature
cannot do indirectly what it could not do
directly and as the Supreme court has
decided the question III favor of White,
there can be no doubt as to the unconsti-
nationality of chapter q, acts OF 1893.
The Legislature cannot deprive a person
Of his office by depriying him of amy
material part of the elnoluments thereof
| as this would be i'll effect depriving him
Of the property he has in the office. Such
action as this partakes of the nature of
a judicial forfeiture without trial.
Bunting VS.. Gales. II n. G.. 203; Cot
ton VS.. Ellis 81 n. G. 545; King VS..
Hunter, 65 n. c. 900, 80; Bryan VS..
Patrick 124 n. G. 651. In White VS..
Hill, supra, the court dill not
include in its opinion anything as to
whether White would be pala the salary
provided for in chapter ID, acts 1897, or
In chapter Is, acts 1899. While the
Legislature can not deprive am officer of
bis entire salary or any material part
thereof, it may change the same as it
may see fit i'm its Judgment to do.
After thorough investigation of the
acts of the Legislature of 1897 and 1897
/ must confess my inability to determine
just what salary White, who has been
reinstated by the decision of the Supreme
court, is entitled to. 1t seems to me,
there being doubt as to the matter, that
is a question for the courts. If the act
Of 1899 had provided for the same salary
as the act of 1897, then the question
would be free from doubt. But as diff
ferent salaries are provided for in the
different acts, and as the Legislature has
the right to change salaries, subject to
the rule as above stated, and as the
question of salary has not been passed
upon by the court, ! respectfully sug-
gest that you make no payment of sal
airy until the question has been judicially
determined, by mandamus or otherwise.
| may add that White is entitled to the
emoluments pertaining to the office, but
just what em0luments are attached there
to does NOT clearly appear.
Very respectfully,
ZEB v. W.ALSER,
A n