The news & observer., 1901-03-07

The Legislature may reduce the salary
Of an existing legislative office. if this
is done for the benefit of the public. and
not for the purpose of injuring the in-
cumbent and to sterve him out. But.
If il clearly appears that il was done for
that purpose, it would be void. Bunting
VS.. Calling, II n. c., 2S2; Hoke VS..
Henderson, supra. In cases where only
a part of the salary is taken from the
officer, it would have 10 appear from the
legislation itself that the object was up-
lawful, or the courts would not interrere.
Hoke VS.. Henderson, surra.
But If the Legislature should under
take TO deprive the officer OF the whole
of his salary. while his office still con-
tnued. the intent would so plainly ap-
pear that the act would be declared void
Hoke vs. Henderson, supra; Gotten VS..
Ellis 52 n. G., 545.
The plaintiff holds his office under an
appointment made in 1897. but he holds
and discharges the duties Of his office
under such laws as may be passed and
in force, during his term OF Office
The Legislature on the 2sth day of
February, 1859. passed an act expressly
amendatory OF chapter 49, Laws of 1885,
this being the act under which the plain
tiff was appointed. And on the I'd day
OF March, two days thereafter. il passed
another act upon the subject of oysters
and shell fish. This act does not state
that It is All amendment Of the former
acts, nor does it purport to repeal the
previous legislation on the subject OF
oysters ana shellfish. except so far as
they arc in conflict with the act of the
2d March, 1899 And on the Sth OF
March, 1899, 1t passed chapter Il. which
is stated TO be supplemental 10 chaptea
19. passed on the "a of March" This
last act prohibits the Treasurer fror.
raying any compensation claimed for
services unless the person so claiming
them. shall be authorized to render such
services under chapter 10. Of which this
act is supplemental The Legislature EN+-
ing general powers of legislation. all
these acts must be observed and enforced,
unless they conflict with the vested con.
stitutional rights Of the plaintiff 1--WE
say the constitutional rights of the plaiH-
tiff, for the reason thai his rights alone
are before US for our considerations
H. is then the duty Of the plaintiff "
administer his Office under the law as 1t
now exists: that is, under the act Of
1897. as modified and changed by the
chapter t9 of the Public Laws of 1899.
For the purpose OF this action II ~
not necessary for MS 10 decide whether
chapters IS and ~. Laws Of 1899, were In
tended as amendmcp;s Of the act of
1897 or net. They are both 3 part OF
The Public Laws Of the State. and must
be Observed when not in conflict with
The plaintiffs vested rights. Chapter 1e
is expressly stated to lie an amendmept
to the act OF 1897, and chapter 19 does
not state whether it is an amendment
or not. If II were necessary for US TO de-
subject, and must be considered together
and treated as amendments. And where
they expressly repeal the former act or
are in conflict with lis provisions, the
provisions Of the latter act must rrevsit,
upless they arc ~ conflict with vested
rights. it ie so held in White Y. Hill, ST.
pra. which is expressly put on Albeit Y.
Beddingfield, 125 y. c., 2js. and Mccall
V Webb. Ibid. 243. And as the plain
tiff is not only authorized TO perform
The duties required by chapter ~. but IL
is in fact his duty TO do so. there can
ba no reason for applying the provisions
Of chapter 81; aud II Is not necessary for
us TO decide whether II would be valid
or not, if it we're necessary for us 10 de-
eide that question
The fact that the Legislature Of 1897
changed the name of ian act 10 promote
The oyster industry Of North Carolina
to that of "Shellhsh Commissioners"
did not abolish the plaintiffs office. White
Y. Hill. and Abbott V. Reddingfeld supra,
Wood v Bellamy 120 \. g., 2t2 Nor
H. l,1 60 hot ftN. act of 81 nCpd
the name OF the plaintiffs Office from
that of Chief Inspector" to that OF
Chairman of the Shellhsh Commission"
oust the plaintiff from his Office or de.
prive him of his salary Wood v Bellamy,
and Abbott V. Beddingfeld, supra.
The plaintiff being entitled 10 his OF
fee and ito the salary attached ttiereto
what is his salary under the legislation
as il now exists and how is he to get
it,
Under chapter 19. of the act OF 1899.
IL seems to us that II has been reduced
to $500 per anpum and five cents pc.
mile travel, when engaged in his work.
and extra expenses not TO exceed $50
per annum. We can not say that this
reduction was not made for s.'e public
benefit. and wc have no power 10 change
IT, and 10 disposition TO do SC If VIC haG
The reduction may be made. Gales y.
Bunting, and Hoke V. Henderson. supra ::
White =. Murray. at this term.
Then what is necessary TO be done IL
enable the plaintiff to draw his salary?
The act OF 1897 did not give specific dl-
rections as to this. The act Of 1893,
chapter 49, section 3. provides that this
shall be done upon the warrant of The
Auditor which warrant shall be issued
by the Auditor upon the certificate OF
the secretary OF said board. and counte. :
signed hy the chairman Of the Shellfish
Commission" This was only matter
CT detail. which seems to have been prop
or to supply a defect in the act of 1891.
and was passed when II was thought that
Hill and his force would be in office. AND
ne cannot and @lo not construe this par
serapli to mean that the incumbent
should not receive any salary for his
services. This in our opinion, would
be 10 construe II To mean what il do~>
think the Legislature could not do: Cot
len V. Ellis, sunra: and Il would also
be to construe ii TO mean what II dces
not say. and what we do not think the
I.egislstrre ipfepded Il to mean.
So. if this dircciion as TO the mannes
CT issuing The warrant can not be liter
ally compiled within bic vel'bi3-''