Evening journal., 1901-07-22
rTVEY NOT DETECTIVE;
NO TAX ON ROADBEDS
Court in Banc Says That Legislature Had
Right to Abolish the Office Of
State Detective
CITY ERRED IN LEvYING TAX

Superior Count I'm Banc spt this
morning and announced opinions In the
cases Of Mcvey VS.. the State OF Della
ware. and saycrs VS.. the Wilmington
and Northern Railroad Company
opinion in the former case is against
McVey. In the latter suit the city
lcscs the contention that IL has author
ity to levy tax on roadbud and poles,
ctc. of railroad and railway compan-
les operating In this city. Chief Jus
tice Lore announced the opinion OF the
cCurt In the McNey case. and Judge
Boycc that in the Sayers suit.
Following is the opinion OF the court
In the McVey case:
This Is an application for a writ Of
pcTompt0ry mandamus. to compel
Martin b. Burris. State treasurer OF the
State OF Delaware the respondent, to
pay to Bernard j. McNcy, the relator.
the sum of one hundred dollars, being
as he alleges the amount due him for
salary as State detective for the month
ending April /. 1901
The facts were agreed upon in a
case stated. and the question of law
raised therein. on joint application of
the parties. was ordered 10y the court to
be heard by the Court in Banc
BY the case stated It appears that
the relator had been regularly appoint
ed and was in the due exercise OF nj.
office as State detective on the
twelfth day of March 1901. by appoint
ment for a term or four years. undel
the provisions. OF chapter 64, volum,
2l Laws OF Delaware, that his tern
of office had not then expired.
Byt act of the General Assembly ap
proved March l2 1901. said chapter g.
was repealed and made null an,
void; thereby the Office OF State dc
toctlve was abolished.
BY act of the General Assembly ap
proved March 10. 1901. the Office %
State detective was rc-established, bu
The reator was not roappOinted unde
the last-namCd act
The rolator claims that the repcalln.
lact Of March IL. 1901. Is void undc
larticle 10. section 4 OF the Conctimti0i
oi 1897. which reads:
No law shall extend the term %
any public officer. nor diminish hi
salary or omolumenis after his elec
tlon or appointment"
lie bases this contention ON tw,
grounds:
!. That the adjustment Of hi
office took away his salary for IN
lresiduc of his term and thereby dimin
ishtd his salary
2. That the abolishmcnt OF the of
fee of State detective by act OF Marcl
Z. II. 1901, and the reestablishment o
the same by act of March 10, 1901. wer
lonly an indirect method OF diminish
ing the salary of the relator. and not
bona fde attempt 10 dispense with tn
lonice
We viii deal with the latter poin
/, first
\ There is no evidence in this cas-
that there was any lack of bona fde
on the part of the Legislature in pass
ing these acts. The presumption O
law is In favor OF good faith. Evel
II there was a lack OF bona fidcs O,
tho part OF the members Of the Legis
flature, what right would this cour
have 10 pass upon that subject II wha
tho Legislature did was within IL
5 power?
u Whether It acted in good faith. an
j for the beast interests Of the public. /
entirely between the members an
their constituents. so long as they con
hne themselves within the limits O
their authority Il is no function q
this court 10 pass upon the motives O
the legislature in the discharge O
their dutE.
The Legislature Of each State repre-
, SCENTS the sovereignty Of the people
! land Il may pass any laws not incon
sistent with the Constitution OF thi
, State or Of the United States.
? Il is well settled. that Offices create
by the Legislature are entirely With
legislative control, that the gift q
such an Office Is not a contract. Un
less there be some constitutional limi
tation. such offices may be modified
abridged or abolished. as the Legisla
ture may see 1T. When an Office
abolished. the former incumbent ha
no right to compensation for the nm