Amador ledger., 1903-09-18
THE cALAvERAs DECISION.

Inc decision OF Judge McSorley OF
Calaveras county, in the Justices
salary case pending in that county
is given in full in the local papers.
1t upholds the constitutionality of
the salary bill along the same lines
as the opinion recently rendered by
Judge Rust in this county. In
arguing the inadmissibility of testi-
mony tending to show that the
change from specific fees to a stated
salary amounted to an increase of
compensation, the court says:
I do not believe it competent to
go behind the law and receive evil
dence aliunde, the only purpose of
which is to impeach and overthrow
the law. Such evidence is. in my
opinion, also incompetent, for the
reason that if admitted it would not
be proof of what might be collected
for the balance of the term of re-
spondent where his compensation is
dependent wholly upon the amount
of services rendered. In other words.
where the mode of compensation is
changed from specific fees to stated
salary, there are no means of deter
mining, in advance, whether the
change amounts to an increase or
decrease of the compensation, be-
cause there is no limit TO the amount
that might be received under the fee
system. Petitioners objection to
the offered evidence of respondent
as to the compensation allowed
under the act of 1901, is therefore
sustained.
If this method of reasoning is
sound law it means that there is no
way Of reaching this question of in
crease of compensation on its merits
until after the close of the current
term of office. If at the close of the
term it is found, by comparison of
the salaries paid under the new law,
and the fees each official would have
been entitled to for the business
transacted under the old law, that
the salaries exceeded the fees that
would have been earned, in that
case the law would be unconstitu-
tlonal; if on the other hand, the fees
equaled or were in excess of the sal
airy paid, then the law would be con-
stitutional. Tt would seem under
this Interpretation that the salary
of one township official might be con-
stitutional, while that of another in
the same county might be unconsti-
tutional. There is no way of guaging
by judicial process, what might be
earned" in the future, by what 'shas
been earned" in the past. The in
ference to be drawn from this is that
the salary law may or may not be
unconstitutional; time alone can de-
ternine the question; and the full
four-years' term must expire ere the
matter can be absolutely settled. If
the fees of a justice or constable were
raised to the extent of one dollar as
compared with the law which gov
erned at the date of his election, the
raise would be unconstitutional: but
a change from fees to salary, .involv-
ing probably hundreds of dollars to
each official in the course of year.
may be made, and there is no way
for the court to reach such a state
OF affairs until it is too late, when
the increased compensation has slip
ped out of the public treasury and
through the pockets of the officials
interested. If this is the state of
our law it is high time that its abiect
impotence in this respect were so de-
termined by the supreme court. In
such event an amendment to the
constitution is in order providing
that no change whatever be permit
ted in the compensation of public Of
ticials, either as regards method or
amount of compensation, after their
election or during their term of
Office.