Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1912-03-25
COMPENSATION WAITS ON
ACTION or LEGiSLATuRl

Especial Correspondence Co HeraId.l
Santa Fe, ~ NJ, March 23.-up-
holding the provision in the cOnsti-
tuition that no county officers shall
draw fees but that they must turn ~
all fees collected TO the county treas
urer and that they shall be paid only
such salaries as the legislature may
provide. the state supreme court sat
urday afternoon. rendered opinions
In the friendly suits OF LORENZO Del
gado. appellee and relator W Eugenio
Romero. treasurer Of san Miguei
county appellant and Charles W G.
Ward. relator and appelle rs. Engenio
Romero, treasurer OF San Miguel
county, appellant
Mr.. Belgado Is county clerk and
Mr.. Ward district attorney. The
suits are Identical in nature except
that Mr.. ward makes the contention
that as he Is a district officer and
not "A state or county officer. the con-
stitution does not apply
These suits were brought by agree
mcnt for the purpose of AZ once test
ing the constitution as It may apply
TO county and state officers and the
decisions rendered by the supreme
court are OF great interest to every
official IN the new state
The opinions in effect, mean that
county and state officers. district at
torneys etc, whose salaries are not
already designated BY law, can not
draw pay autll the legislature has
provided salaries for the said offices.
In the Delgado case the supreme
court, In an opinion drawn up by
Clarence j. Roberts, chief justice, de-
clares as follows:
The last clause OF section !
article 10 of the constitution OF New
Mexico which reads as follows And
no county officer shall receive TO his
own use any fees or emOlumonta,
other than the annual salary provided
by law. and all such fees earned by
any officer shall be by him collected
aud paid into the treasury OF the
county" Is self executing.
. The section applies 20 officers
elected al the first election, and by
lis provisions they are required 10
collect and pay into the county treas
ury, an fees earned by them, and can
not retain any such fees 20 their own
use.
3. The constitution should be so
construed. as 10 give effect 10 the In
teIt of the people IN adopting IT, but
the intent b 20 be found In the In
Btrument itself
4. The presumption o. that each
department Of the government VIII do
iis duty. and the fact that Il might
fail therein, should not influence the
court.
3. There Is no presumption In law
that a public official Is to receive q
salary.
The compensation OF a county
officer under the provision Of section
] Of article 10 Is dependent upon the
enactment hy the legislature OF q
salary law, and he can not recover for
his services until such law Is pass
cd and then only as provided by such
act.
z. The mere fact that legislation
might supplement and add 10 or pre-
scribe penalty for violation OF sell
executing provision Of a constitution
does not render such provision IN
effective Ia the absence Of such iogis
iati0n.
II constitutional provision
either directly or by implication i'm
noses duty upon an officer y,
legislation ~ necessary 90 require th'
performance Of such duty.
The opinions in both suits, are d.
the chief Justice. The attorneys arg
g. W. q Ward and :. y. McMiliei
for appellant, with Frank w. Clancy