Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-06-28
sr.rE OFFICIAL SALARIES

" a.a,oment in the News To-Day
i r reference to the salaries OF s'a,' v'',I
aors Az first sight 1t seems '' ,..,
yea s .s,f.contradictory Taken in us en-
,lrety however and viewing us open
,,o in the light Of It's CLOSING 'o
,ns I've Il appears rational and CONSIST
sr, and the action determined u I,
shows caution and self-pro'ecuoh,
...,ement Of Attorney-General NJ ~
preeden has already been puo''Sn7o :"
49, 1Nowso Put together the arsu-
,a,,s ~ the two officials tend 10 es-
,ah,,sh the position, that the present
e,.,o officers are entitled to the IN
creosed salaries provided in the act Oh
March "A, 1901 .,o
The intention Of the trainers OF the
state Constitution, II judged from 'ne
debate over the provision as 10 tnose
salaries, was to fix the amounts un-
cbangeably for one term only that 49,
the term next ensuing after the adop-
zion Of the Constitution. After thar
they were to be "as fixed by law that
60 NV act Of the Legislature. The opih-
ion nppeared to prevail that the Legis-
lature could at its first session make
change in the salary list, either by In
creasing or reducing the amount pro-
vIded in the Constitution, but that the
legislation should not take effect so as
10 apply to the salary Of any oflieer
during the term then existing
Judging also from the debate over the
act Of 1901 fixing these salaries 1t was
the intent of the Legislature to make
the increase apply to the ncumbents Of
the present term Of Office, and this was
emphasized by the provision in the APP
preparation act designating the sum
necessary for the proposed Increase
There can be no reasonable doubt after
reading the expressions of the majority
OF the members who took part In the
discussion Of the question, that the pur-
pose In view was to raise the salaries OF
the incumbents as well as of the officers
who should be thereafter elected or APP
pointed.
II IL the custom Of courts, we believe,
to arrive at the meaning. intent and
spirit Of law. whether II be in the in
~ aApetlf.stl1V ar ~ n
legislative enactment, to take the in
strument itself comparing part with
part, instead OF reverting to the opin-
ions expressed by lis trainers. II the
contention over the meaning OF the law
and the restriction in the Constitution
shall be taken to the courts. different
conclusion may possibly be reached
than that arrived at by a number of
able lawyers who have expressed their
opinions on the subject. Other attor-
neys disagree with them on the point
In dispute, and it is very rare indeed
that all members Of the bar are a unit
on legal question,
The Constitution OF the State Of Utah
in article 7, section 20, provides that:
"The Governor, Secretary Of State,
Auditor. Treasurer Attorney General
Superintendent OF Public Instruction
and such other state and district Off
GERS as may be provided for by law.
shall receive for their services quarter
n -, 10.
which shall not be diminished or in
creased 80 as 20 affect the SAL
airy OF any officer during his term,
or the term next ensuing after the
adoption Of this Constitution unless
vacancy occur. In which case the sue
cessor OF the former incumbent shalt
receive only such salary as may be pro-
vided by law at the time Of his election
or appointment The compensation Of
the officers provided for by this article,
until otherwise provided by law, Is
fixed as follows"
Then follow the sums 10 be drawn by
the State officers named in the Constl-
tuition. The phrases provided for by
law" and fixed by law" evidently
mean by act Of the legislature. The
restriction imposed appears TO be par
tleularly and specially against any
change IN the salaries named in the
Constitution. during the first term az
ter it, adoption. Careful scrutiny OF
the section we have quoted bears out
this impression. The language EN-.
ployed TO convey the intention OF the
provision might have been made much
palmer, II little more care had been
exercised IN rs composition The word
or" In reference 20 "the term next
ensuing after the adoption Of this Con-
stltutlon," seems 10 signify that is
The phrascology IS permissible accord
ing to the best standards. In this con-
nectlon II would be "a conjunction CO.
ordnating two or more words or claus
cs, each Of which In turn Is regarded as
an equivalent Of the other or others"
There can be no doubt Of the inten-
ton Of the Legislature. in fixing the
HdlullfN VI f1NaAH NlllN'lFf TO- HlhhN AhNHA
apply as the compensation for the
present as well as future incumbents.
The only real point II contention is the
exact meaning Of the clause IN the Con-
sctutlon which we have quoted. No
matter what the Legislature intended
II the Constitution really forbids the
action taken 50 FAR as it applies TO pres
eEt salaries. that provision is void The
only way 10 settle this question Is by
an appeal 10 the courts. The Supreme
court Of Utah can decide the matter
finally. II any State officer chooses to
make test
We have touched on this matter be-
cause there has been considerable mis-.
ranraeanfattou ~ the facts in the case,