Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1912-07-06
GROUND FOR A DIFFERENCE
MR.. WARD DECLARES THE LAW
CAN BE INTERPRETED IN
TWO WAYS
THEY MAY DOAS THEYCHOOSE
LEGAL ADVISER SAYS EITHER
POLICY WILL NOT CAUSE
DIFFICULTIES.

For TWO days the board OF county
commissioners has been wrestling
witt the problem Of whether or moi
to authorize the payment of salaries
to certain county officers, including
members Of the board, according to
the decision of Attorney General
Clancy. After reading the decision ct
Mr.. Clancy, which appears in another
column of this paper, District Attor-
ney Ward has advised the commits
sioners not to authorize such pay
ments His letter, which is seIf-ex-
planatory, follows:
Las Vegas, N. M, July 6, 1912.
To the Honorable Board of County
Commissioners and County Treas
urer of San Miguel County.
Gentlemen l have read and sub
mitted for your consideration the
opinion of the attorney general to the
effect that such county officers as
are at present upon salary basis,
and receive no fees may be paid the
salaries allowed them by territorial
lew, and that the neeessarv expenses
Incurred by officers who receive fees
in the employment of deputies. office
expenses, etc, may be paid olt Of The
county treasury.
Approaching fully the force of the
argument advanced by the attorney
general that public business must not
be crippled, and the reasoning to the
effect that the recent decisions OF
the supreme court in the fee and sal
airy cases do not apply to county Of
ficers who receive simply = salaFyt
I must, nevertheless, hold to my pre-
viously expressed opinion that under
the constitution of New Mexico, as
interpreted by the supreme court Of
the state, no county officer may re-
ceive either fee or salary until the
legislature has provided for salaries
as required by the constitution.
AS to whether or not you should act
in accordance with or are bound by
my opinion, I have no hesitancy in
saying that you may do as you
choose without fear of civil damages
or penalty. No case affecting the
officers in question is now
before the courts of the state as far
as know. There is ground for diff
ference of opinion. The attorney
general, the highest law officer OF
the state, in letter to district at
torneys, which has been widely pub
Iished holds different view from
the one have expressed and he is
by many Of the district at
torneys. The state, through its dis
.rict attorney, could institute a pro-
seeding to enjoin you from paying
salaries. but under the circumstances,
t does not intend to do SO. Any tax
payer in the county could institute
such a proceeding, or, should you de-
cline to pay salaries, any salaried
county officer could bring a man
iamus proceeding. Practically, it
would doubtless prove more advan-
-ageous, should the advice of the at
.orney general, rather than the dis
.rict attorney of this district be TAX
IN. 1 have already advised that the
payment of such necessary expenses
as the feeding of prisoners. and the
repayment of actual sums expended
BY officers in the necessary perform
ance of their duties. The payment
of deputies appears to me to be car
rying the view too far, but the i'm
portanee Of uniformity throughout the
state in this respect is evident, and
[ am informed that such practice will
be followed in all other districts.
had reached the conclusion that
The opinions heretofore handed down
by the supreme court were broad