The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-12-22
THE Retroactive
CLAUSE INVALID.
Raise in Salaries Must Begin
After Approval Of
Ordinance.
ATTORNEYS OPINION !, !.
Action Of Auditor in Holding
Up Voucher Is Sus-
tanned.

\ B. Z 5s5f !. Z
The action OF Auditor Warren In hold
Ing up tho. Mayors voucher FOR tho In
crease in salary extended by ordnance
was sustained by the opinion OF tho City
Attorney on the matter.
The point raised was that the ordinance
was retroactive' and could not cnriy with
1t ar increase provided for before tho
ordinance was approved. The measure
as adopted by the Council and approved
by tho Mayor several days ago, raised
tho salary Of the Mayor to $500 q year
from September LIST s = n
rho ordinance was first introduced In
the Council before that date, but hung
fire until the last meeting of tho Board
of Aldermen, when 1t wac finally disposed
of and in the course of ~ few days up
proved by tho Mayor. Then the retro
active feature was referred to by Alder
man Blair, who had. alSalong, opposed
the measure. The Auditor. also had /
doubts about tho legality Of ths measure
and felt he would be on the spfc side
70 get the opinion OF the City Attorney
before he. paid the money. M
This was the first time tho question
had been raised, although there have been
several increases III various city depart-YS
ments under similar circumstances. It
is not believed the question will be again
raised or thnt action will be taken IN re
gard to the other cases. which are, COM
paratiyely insignificant, but tho opinion
OF tho City Attorney will be held as tho
Law to work upon In future. be opinion
In full follows .,.,
Mr.. Edward u. Warren, tor, City:
Dear Sir,--In response to your coln-3
munication Of the 18th Instant, in which
you ask my opinion 4ns Ito whether the
ordinance approved Dec, 15 100, fixing
the salary of THO Mayor at $500 per an
fcot on Sept. i, 1901, IS legal, and Il such
legal whether that renders
the; Wl1oie ordinance illegal and inopera-
| ive5EI beg to reply g follows: i
| The solution ofbEtlis question may be
4 found by an examination of the charter
and ordinances Of the city rel atineg TO TINS
\ subject, bearing III mind the principle
THAT the charter stands very much IN ting
l5by the# Council, that the Constitution Of
| the State docs to the statutes ussed by
1.-the Legislature.
/ Section s OF the charter OF the city Of
| Richmond, as amended by an net APP
1 Language: y !:
4 by the qualified voters of the city OF ticil;
1 mond for term Of four years and until
4 his successor shall be elected and aunllfy.
! His salary shall be fixed by tho City
N Council. payable at stated periods. 2, nc
Il he shall receive no other c4onlpensat ION
4 81 ernolument whatsoever; and no regu--
tslntlons diminishing such compensation
liafter 1t has been once fixed. g shall be
made 70 take effect LATER the eXp Ira,
4 then In Office. shall have been elected.
The the Mayor when Tsd shat
4 Council as aforesaid" (Acts Of General
Assembly, i extra session. 1909 1907 page
I Gg9.) !5 J8i s5a
1 by a comparison 81 the amended sec
ton with the section found IN the eehar !.
will be seen that the only al tera ton made
inthls section, So far as affects the
as to the term Q & office Of the A layer.
4 which was formerly two Years. SO as 70
4 conform to the new Constitution. which,
i fixes the term mt four years
4 El1c question, reasonably arises had the
\ Council, previous to the adoption4of the
u .ordlnances under consideration, obeeyed
1.-The mandate contained in the origlnnl.
a Land continued in the amended SECTION
]. and fixed the salary OF the Mayor. ny