Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-06-20

AT tho Court House on Saturday
afternoon Court In Eano heard afpu.
mani in the suit ut Bernard j. McVey
"a State Treasurer Martin b. Burris.
an action to detarn inc the oonstitu-
tionaity of nm act Of the lastLegisla.
lure abolishiug the law under which
Detectiyes Money anu Witsil were
working. Mr.. McTey was represented
by John Bisgs and the State treasurer
by Attorney General II. H.. Ward and
bis DEPUTY, Robert II. Richards. -.
Argument was made on an applica-
ton Tor writ OF peremptory mnndamus
on the State treasurer to compel him
TO pay over 10 the relator 300, being
bis salary as State detective for the
month of March. The relator held the
Office of State detective under an act
rassed by the Legislature on March
18th, 1898. At the session of the
Delaware Legislature on, March 18th,
1901. the Office of State detective was
abolished. But ON March 10Th the Office
vac re-estsblished by the passnge Of an
act by the Same Legislature. Under
article Is, section 4 OF the Constitution
the Legislature cannot diminish the
eaary or emoluments of Office OF any
officer during his term. Counsel for
Detective Movey held that TO abolish
ia 10 diminish, for the meaning of
diminish is TO make less. This relators
salary was diminished in the most
etfectual way by abolishing the Office.
Mr.. Biggs argued thar the act of the
Legislature WAS only to diminish, make
less and take away the salnry OF the
relator and bestow 1t elsewhere.
Here took place lively tilt as Ia the
GOOD faith and the power Of the LeRis.
tended that this was o constitutional
Office and be claimed the Office OF State
detective had not been abolished. The
wording Of the acts of 1893 and 1901
was the same, he said. The whole
thing in nutshell was, in his belief.
TO turn one man out and put another
man in his place. Judge Spruance
asked: "Mr. Biggs, what difference
would it make If the repeating act had
heen passed and no new act created
three days later?" ~
Mr.. Biggs replied: my contention
is that the act had to he abolished in
good faith. This act in my belief is a
manifest fraud to- turn two man out,
put two men in theft places and pay
them their salaries, and is against
public policy" -
Chief Justice Loie said: "a man
must hold an Office In order that his
sslary may be diminished,
Judge Grubb asked: "Wbat is there
10 the Constitution to show the Lsgisa-
ture did not have the power to abolish
this act?n i'll. ID
Mr, Biggs replied: "That part
already quoted which says that no law
may be passed to prolong Bnn Office or
to diminish an oliiceF'e ealary.n
Deputy ATTORNEY .GeueraI Richards
replying said that there was no section
OF the Constitution that prscludeditha
Legislature from Aholishing the Office
OF state detective. Nothing Is said IN
the Constitution that the Legislature
shall not abolish the term of a public
officer The Constitutional Convention
intended and the Constitution meana
that the Legislature is restricted only as
the extension OF a public Office, or the
reduction of an officials pay or emolu-
nents. There is nothing but implica-
ZION that tho salary was diminished
When thb Office was abolished. Not
being public officer aud not having u
vested interest the relatnr ia not entitled
10 any salary after March 18th, when
the office of State detective. was
abolished
Attorney General Ward said that the
ground had beeu so lueidly covered by
his colleague that he would but briefly
refer to the case. There is n publio
Eolicy, he said, maintaining the power
IN the Legislature to abolish an Office
whore thare ~ no prohibition in the
Constitution. II by statute law q
public Office ceases then the salary Of
the public officer does no: continue. If
public officer dies his salary ceases
and II "a public office IL abolished then
the salRry OF the public officer does not
continue. After q brief argument on
the same lines the case was submitted.
The court reserved decision
Brotherhood tf IfrAuanu.