The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-07

q necessity of a we'll paid Judiciary, and mas enacted statute increasing the sal ares of the Judges all along tho line. VIII tne Legislature be just and follow
 .me example of the Congress? I feel quite sure that the legislators simply need
 conscientious consideration of the matter
 @ .Teacn q favorable conclusion to the 9Hoses, Furthermore. l believe they will sive the matter that consideration.
 Of ths i' IS now pending in either branch crease In the salaries of the Judges but
 l understand the bill is opposed by some on me ground that 1t is unconstitutional, n tnat It increases the salaries of the the bill is violative of Section 2Sl of the Sonsutution. Some of the best lawyers .r the state have expressed the opinion .nat the bill is not, when construed in umnccuon with Section 150 of the Consti- .uuon and subdivision of the schedule vloiauve of the constitution in any re-
 specS but that 1t Is entirely within leg .siauVe competency to enact such a law
 sn Hacn tnoush 1t should in express terms increase the salaries of Judges now in omce. which 1t does not However this may be q deem it unnecessary to discuss the questlon), let's concede for the sake of
 argument that Section PSI prohibits the
 Leglsiature from enacting q law which
 will increase the salaries of the Judges now m omce. No one at all familiar with
 .ne constitution will urge that the Leg
 islature is prohibited by that instrument
 rom enacting law that will carry an increase of salary to the Judges who are
 10 be elected in 1901; and if 1t is dcsir-
 aple to increase the salaries of the Judges wno will be elected in 1904. and the con sututlonal objection mentioned is valid,
 .ne present Legislature is only one that can make the increase. because an- o.ner Will not meet until two years after the next Judges have been elected.
 But lets examine the bill which is now
 whether or not the objection of unconsti-
 tutionalfty is tenable. As l understand the wording of the bill, 1t provides in
 general terms for an increase in the sal ares ot tne Judges, of course, fixing the amount of increase. It makes no men,
 ton. in express terms, of an increase in tne salaries of the Judges now holding
 onice. nor is there any expression of any
 limitation as to when the bill, if it should
 become law. will take effect. There fore, if the position of those who con tend that the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from making any increase in the salary Of Judges now in office Is cor rect, the law by virtue of. the constitu
 ton would not he effectual until the suc- cessors of the Judges now in office are elected; or to state the proposition diff ferently, the law would not affect the salaries of the Judges now in office. It also follows. that If the contention as to the Constitution prohibiting the increase m the salaries of the Judges now n of- nee Is correct. that 1t would be a matter or supererogatjon to put in the law any proviso. that 1t shall not affect any in- crease in the salaries of the present Judges, or as to when it shall go into enect- The bill in Its present shape, un- der this view, would be complete to carry increase to the salaries of the next Judges, and the Constitution would pre- vent the present Judges from having any increase under it. To my mind this is plain-plain as q, b, C law, and no legis- lator need have any scruples in voting for the bill, so far as constitutional ob-
 lection goes for 1t is a measure in per
 feet keeping with that instrument, for
 the purpose of increasing salaries of fu-
 ture judges. even in the light of the ob- lection urged.
 Constitution relating to this matter are
 considered together, it may be that the
 courts would hold that Section 15J is an
 express provision relating to a partic- ular class. and that Section 2S1 has a
 diherent field of operation and does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting q
 law increasing the salaries of the Judges
 now in office. So it would seem to be 9
 question of judicial construction as 10 when the law would take effect and of consequence. whether or not 1t would af-
 feet the salaries of the present Judges
 If the bill should pass in it's present
 form. and some Judge now in office should 5ppiy for the increase in salary
 the Auditor could decline to issue his warrant for the same then the Judge could apply for a mandamus and the question. whether or not under the Con stitution, the law affects an increase in
 the salary of Judges COW in office, would be presented for decision by the courts | Certainly, no legislator who is favorable 1 to an increase of salary, but thinks the Constitution does not allow 1t to the pres ent Judges, would object to passing the bill. and thus allow the Judges to have the question determined. Even if the Court should hold that the law cannot af- feet the salaries of the Judges now in office it certainly would not hold that the law is unconstitutional. and declare
 It void. but would leave it of force to affect an increase in the salaries of flu
 ture Judges.
 It Is to he hoped that the Legislature VIII consider the matter very maturely before declining 10 pass the bill pend ing. If it needs amendment of course.
 the proper amendments should he made. J. M. Fakner.