The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-08-09
COUNC|LMEN'S PAY.
POINTERS ON It
Fragile Plea That Members Are
Not Entitled to What Ordi-
nance Grants.
THE SALT LAKE CASE
NOT AT ALL LIKE 0GDEN'S
The Former Is Fully Fortified by
Ordinance, the Latter Lacks
All Basis.

few days regarding the matter of pay
ments to certain members OF the City
Council. during the years 1904 and 1905,
for service as members OF the Board of
Equalization OF Water Rates. An effort
also has been made to place the matter
on all fours with the Ogden Councilmanic
cases, So far as this attempt Is con-
cerned. 1t will absolutely fail, IA the
cases are totally dissimilar. In the Og-
den cases, the Councilmen voted certain
amounts to themselves, by resolution. in
the absence of an ordinance covering the
matter, while the Salt Lake Councilman
have dawn the money complained Of,
under an ordinance, which Ia In full
force and effect.
Despite the attempt to create a SON
sation. 1t is not believed that anything
will come Of It. In fact, to date, the
matter has not been taken seriously. be-
cause of the familiarity OF the public
with the spirit behind 1t all. And, in
event the twaddle about the removal Of
the Councilmen. who. II they have been
paid amounts to which they were not
legally entitled, were paid such amounts
under AL ordinance. which Is In full force
and effect, Is extremely silly. II the
Councilmen who have drawn this money
were not entitled to 1t, they may be
called upon to return II. That is all
there Is to the matter. Tho Tribune
believes, however, that all the Council
mon who have served upon the Board Of
Equalization Of Water Rates since the
passage OF the ordinance are entitled to
the compensation therein provided.
At the same time, though, O prominent
attorney who has looked carefully into
the matter, takes q special View. His
opinion Is as follows:
A Technical Opinion.
Tho constitution. article 81. section /. reads:
''All States, districts. cities, counties, towns
and school officers, excepting notaries. boards
OF arbitration, court commissioners, justices
of the peace and constables. shall be paid
fxed and definite salaries.
The Revised Statutes. 1898. section 226
reads am as follows; All officers OF any ny city
fixed by ordinance, but tho compensation of
my such officers shall not be Increased or
diminished 20 take effect during tho tmo
for which any officer was elected or ap-
pointed
The revised ordinances of the city of 1892
rs to salaries OF officers. chapter rs, page
1863, snys. "Councilmen. $3.50 por year. IS nd-
ditional for each special meeting and s. per
week for committee WORK.
September IL. 1897. an ordinance as to eal-
aries of city officers was passed by the City
Each member of the City Council IN full for
all Official services. 1920 per anuum and pro-
stded that nll ordinances and parts and reso-
utions in conflict were repealed" This ordi
nance was vetoed by the Mayor September
Il, 1887. and on September 20 1897. was passed
over the Mayors yetoe ani duly published,
There has been no other ordinance passed
oy the City Council With Icforelce to the sal
aries OF Councilmen from thot time until tho |
'ovised ordinances were passed, which went
nro effect September %, 1903, and seotion 121
'f chapter 10 provides for such compensation. |
1t Will be noted that these revised ordi- |
1ances went into effect December 2S, 1903,
lfter tho election OF the officers who entered |
lpon their Office January. 1904.
The Supreme court OF this State has PASSED |
lpon what Is meant by tn" provision OF the |
,evised statutes above Il ltioned tnaIpely;
section 225), In two cases. namely, Hulipiskl |
70, Ogden City, O1 Pacific report, 676, and |
deessuer VS.. Mayor, 5Sth Pacific lilo. In |
ho former case the plnintin was elected |
Justice OF the pence November Q, 1897. His |
erm OF oflce to begin January 3, 1893, At |
he time OF his election the salary fixed by |
ordinance November L. 1894. was $1,000 n year
was passed to go into effect Do
embor 81, 1897. abolishing tho salary OF
1000. Plaintif qualified January 8. 1893. AZ
erward. and In January, 1893, by ordinance f
Il the City Council. the salary Of Justice Of
he Peace made $3.50 q yelr Plaintiff |
,rought his suit, claiming TO he entitled to
ho $1,000 salary and the Supreme court of
his State held. constituting section 225 OF
he revised statutes, that the action of the
,ouacil abolshing the ssln:y Of $1,000 was
old and that plaintiff was entitled to recover
Ste'S s'ae hou4V ouiibB thc wv SeuTb \
or which he was elected the court using |
hese words. There is no ambiguity In the
anguage used. 1t Is plain that the Intention
ias to prohibit any change in the salary of
ity olllccr after his election appointment
o take effect during his term
In the other case the court adopted this |
OF this section OF the statutes
From these statements of the law and the |
tntutes the following conclusions seem plain. |
First-Thar from the time the ordinance
essed ovor the Mayors yetoe, September |
5. 1907, and went into effect, until Decom-
or 2s. 1903. whom the revised ordinances Of
o03 went into effect, The only compensation
hat City Councilmen ~a5 entitled to receive |
'os $$20 per year ''for all official services'
Sccond-Thnt tho revised ordinances did |
ot include the comp an ,ation OF any Coun- |
linen elected In that year during the time
or which he was oloc'ed
Third-That the members of the Council
looted in November 1904. are entitled to the
compensation provided for by the revised or
inances of 1903
Should the attorneys view of the case
revail. President A. J. Davis. against
HON the real fight iB being waged.
'ould not be entitled to the amounts
aid him In 1904 or 1905. Neither would
arnstrom. Tuddenham, Martin or
rsece. But In case of suit, the Su-
RENE court would. no doubt. be called
pom to pass anew upon the whole ques-
lon.