Evening journal., 1901-07-22

expired term. The salary Is an incl
dent OF the Office and dies with It. The
vital question. therefore. Is. had the
Legislature the right to abolish the
Office under article Is. section 4 OF the
Constitution?
Tho only limitation as TO the term OF
office. Is that mo law shall extend the
term OF any public officer" The in
herent power Of the Legislature to
abridge the term or abolish the office
is left untouched. There being no cen
stitutional inhibition. the right to Gre
ate carries with II the right to abolish,
and when 80 abolished there Is no Of
flee 10 support salary, which Is a
mere incident: therefore that part Of
article Is. section 4. of the Constitu-
tion which prescribes that no law
shall diminish his salary or cmolu-
monts after his election or appoint
ment.' has no application 10 this case.
II only applies TO cases where an Office
continues in existence. and during such
/ continuance the attempt is made TO
diminish the salary or emoluments
This conclusion Is founded on reason.
and is supported by authority Of cases
decided under similar constitutional
provisions in the States Of Pcnnsyl-
yania and Washington.
Donohugh vs.. Roberts. II week
notes OF cases (Phila.) 1856; Com. vs..
/ Wier. 1866 Pa. ST.. 2S4 Bogue vs.. City
OF Seattle 80 Pac. Rep, 5iS.
! We conclude that the Office OF the
relator was abolished by the act OF
March II. 1901, and that after that
Hufl ln a. NJ. IgI a.. a
salary provided for State detective un-
der said chapter Ga. volume .. Laws OF
Delaware
Il is ordered that this opinion be
certified by the prothonotary TO the
Superior Court in and for New Castle
county.
SAVERS VS.. W. & n.
The opinion OF the Court IN the
Sayers case is contained In the follow
ing paragraph:
The opinion Of this court. there
fore. is that the act entitled AN Act
Relating to Taxes for County and Mu-
nicipal Purposes passed at Dover the
5lst day OF March, A. ID. 1887. being
chapter 2fl, volume rs. Laws OF Della
ware. Revised Code 115. remains I'm
force. and that by reason thereof the
real estate Of the defendant corpora-
tion. included within the limits of the
rights OF way and roadbeds of tho
main line Of the railroad and the sew
cral sidings and branches thereof. be-
longing TO and operated by the said
defendant corporation. and located
within the territorial limits Of the as
1essment and collection district of the
city of Wilmington south of Sixth
street not including any buildings
erected in whole or in part within the
limits Of such rights OF way or road
beds, is exempt from taxation for mu-
nicipal purposes under the said act
and that the plaintiff has not the right
TO collect from the defendant the
amount Of the said tax set forth I'm the
case stated.
That tho city has lost the Savers
suit means that at least $4,000 In city
t1Xos Is uncolloctable. This is very
disappointing 90 City Council. which
body will now have 10 resort to some
l other method OF increasing the city
finances. The opinion affects like
suits of the r.. W. & b.. the b. g. o.
/ lpanies operating here wayo .cing.7s
/ Railroad Company. and all the trolley
d companies operating here. Suits by
Z the Wilmington City Electric Company
{ will be argued at the next term of
r court. The Sayers case was entered
Z TO Suerior Court on December %.
1889. and its argument followed al
most Immediately. Points of law in
olved we're dealt with exhaustively,
O. and every phase OF the case brought
) out clearly Robert G.. Harman repre-
scented the city and Levi c. Bird. An
4 drew e. Sanborn and Charles M. Curtis
\ the defendant company.
Z In the McVey case Attorney-General
. Ward represented the State and John
- Biggs the relator. The effect Of the
opinion is that Governor Hunn's ap-
p pointment OF James T. Ratledge as a
s State detective stands. In a few days
s a successor TO Walter Witsil will be
p appointed.