The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-12-22


and the amendment itself provided that
r sl.e sseo under s wei, known rules Of
o ssn s. s al axns
hs HIT With eth Tho amended instrument.
as IL torfe nd y ~
adoption OF a new Constitution has gone
effect In the .premlses,l * Is sufficient 70
,e Is the new Constitution It is provided
that the statute laws In force at the
timo tho Constitution goes into effect. 50
t ar as no uhal ers Until
tic the schedule IS tundoubtediy broad enough
the several municipal corporations OF
thu. new Constitution. A municipal ordi-
and ofIicacious within tho territory to
which 1t applies Ii It has the same ftrce
ana is entitled to tho Same respect.
has It's origin and IS treat ted by She
courts as d State law. See N. O. Water
Works vs., Louisiana Sugar Company 1 1s5
But apart from the reasons above given,
! which have reference solcly TO tho con 4,
structton OF the charter Of the city and
the ordinances, i am clearly OF opinion
strong TO Sc ignored the part Of &c or.
dinance which provides that It shall take
effect as OF Septembe !, 1901, though not
which would result In giving additional
vices performed between September Is,
This position is Isl f;,lls sustained by tho
elementary writers. on municipal slnyy, and
by the 9adjudicated cases. It IS said by
| corpo rations,S that 'the Legislaturc,sin the.
| absence OF constitutional Limitations,
may create and abolish I. offices. odd to or
the term OF office. and increase. diminish
ut its nleasure But afteFsN the services
express contract 10 pay a. therefor at the
force at the .dntc when the services were
paired BY subsequent legislation Section
XAnd again in the next section Ahe learn
4 corporation arc deemed TO have accepted
lsthelrs Office with knowledge OF and With
reference TO the proyisio Of the char
the services which they may be called
upon to render. afd the compensation
4 provided therefor. RI
Mr.. Tiedeman In his work on Municipal
Corporations, In section 70. states8th the fol
| lowing to be the rulc: But after official
services have been fully rendered. an OK.
ccuted contract exists between the city
A and the official. the Obligation Of which
/ is always beyond Impairment or, change
4 by Sta to or municipal authorlties.''s ss
In Smiths Modern Law Of Municipal
4 Corpor Ions itf,is laid down in section
III as Follows: TT has long been Il fixed
sIrule Of law that one who accepts a pub
4 lie office which has "a definite salary at
Il tached ttof IT. must perform all the duties
4 ana even IL after he enters into Office his
4 duties are Increased lie cannot compel
Il payment OF extra compensation,
While It is true that these authorities
are more especially directed against. laws
ATTEMPTED to DO enacted by, municipal
bodies, intended to diminish the compen-
!. sation Of officers after the services have
Il been performed, yet the principle is exact
the compensation, fter the services have
Il been performed, Z when we remember that
4 q municipality has no powers "a except
those which are expressly granted: or
4 those which are necessarily implied from
A powers expressly granted q for It must be
Il fconceded that he legislative body OF a
d municipality cannot ignore the, contract
4 rights sof the corporation any moro than
4 Is can lnlpnir- the obligation of q contract
4 to, tho injury OF a third person.
A gi It was laid down in the case OF Gall
Il breath VS.. CityFof Moberly, so Missouri
Il 4S4, that ''An of1lcc OF q city goyernnen n
4 must be presumed to have knowledge OF
4 the ordinances or orders establishing and
a continuing his salary and where tho city
a has paid him the salary it retarded as
due him. and he has received II q $ such,
he is estopped from claiming more. q
Coming now TO your second inquiry,
Il have to say that the Council of the city
had legal authority to increase the salary
a from which it follows that their action in
n so doing was legal, unless tho Illegal part
Il Incorporated in the ordinance s rendered IT
n ly.yoid. In such cases the 80 Verning
& principle, MS laid down loy Judge Cooley
n In his work, on CONSTITUTIONAL, Lin tons
Il Is as follows: h, ss5s ST. Z
\ Where, therefore, q part q a$statute
II is sunconstit utlonal, that TACT does not
a authorize the courts to declare the re-
z mainder void also, unless all the pro-
u lvisions fnrn connected in subjcct-matter
n depending on each other, operating ! o.
getller for TIE same purpose or o.s ,oS y
cannot DO presumed the Legislature would
hnyo passed the one without the other;
z The constitutional and unconstitutlonu
i provisions may even be contained IN tho
"A same section md yet be perfected dis
ltnct and separate, so that the first may
stand though tho lest fall 8as The gpoin 7 is
a not whether they,!re eontained IN Z th g
"A same section. for the distribution into
4 eectIons Is II purely art licial but whether
they are essentially and inseparably con-
Injected In substance. If,When tho lncon,
stittional portion y stricken on1 tna1
Capable of being executed IN Inccord1nce
withthe apparent latiyeintent wholly
\ independent Of that which was rejected
t ttiel Limitations, pages al5, aloo
g The Virginia cases which need not he
cited alesin harmony with the doctrine
Il y here stated. ssi f3 81 18sit
7IItsis evident from the most casual read,
XII ing ofTthe ordinance that the words, nc
q take effect from Sept /, 1884, may be
y stricken out without impairng tho senst
OF the finance or ts prospect tive opera,
h ton to accomplish the future increase Of
Z tho Mayors sa larry. y. 4. /.
!. 81 i nm therefore, Of opinion that tho IL
legality of the provision of the ordinance
Z should become effective does not render
the whole ordinance invalid, but thai
from ana after Dec. n. 1904, the date q
Il Of the Mayor is legally iixed ut 80, 500 nnt
~ {tiatfhe il entitled to be paid accordingly
IA II At l,e objected that to strike out tn
K sentence quoted leaves the lordinarct
8 shall take place, 1t Is replied that tn
4 common rule in. regard to LEGISLATION. IS
+ ahal It shall tnkc Immediate effect unless