The daily sentinel., 1914-05-21

AAs = - -" IL
Mr. Joseph Quinn.
Clerk of the District Court. Grand
Junction, Colorado.
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of May 10,
1914, in which you request me to ad-
wise you as county attorney whether
or not you are entitled to draw salary
as clerk of the district court as al
lowed in counties OF the third class,
desire to say that chapter 50 of the
laws of 1913 makes Mesa county
county of the third class for the pur-
pose of regulating the compensation
of county and other officers. Judge
Black recently held in the case of
Rowe vs.. Davis that this act did apply
insofar that you should charge the
public the lower fees which the re-
classification OF our county under
said act provides for.
Section 80 of article . of the con-
stitution provides that:
NO law shall extend the term of
any public officer or increase or df-
minish his salary OF emoluments af-
ter bis election or appointment
Section 10 of article 6 of the con-
stitution provides:
There shall be a clerk OF the dis
trict court in every county wherein
a term IL held who shall be appoint
ed by the judge OF the district court
to hold his office during the pleasure
OF the Judge His duties and com
pensation shall be as provided by law
and regulated by the rules of court"
The question therefore is: Does
the first Intentional provision of the
constitution apply to clerk of the
district court2 II seems that the
provision applies to public officers
who hold office for term" and it
is only an officer who holds for
term whose salary cannot be increas-
ed or diminished by action of the
legislature during his term.
Meachem on public officers, says:
The word term when used in ref
erenee to the tenure OF office means
ordinarily fixed and definite time,
and does not apply to appointive Of
fiees held at the pleasure of the
power"
case very similar to yours is that
OF the state ex rel. Rumbold vs. Cor
don, 23S Missouri 16S. 1t is found
In the American and English Ammo
tated cases volume &c at page 312.
In that case the adjutant general of
Missouri was appointed to office by
the governor at salary OF $4,000
per year Under thealaw it was pro-
vided that he might be removed at
the governors pleasure Thereafter
the legislature increased his salary to
*2,o0O. In passing upon the matter
the supreme court OF Missouri said
that arf
This officer could not be said to
he 0ffiger "a No h.,It 1,t
a term and that therefore the CON
stitutional provision against an in
crease in salary during the term OF an
OFFICER does not apply"
TO the same effect are the follow
ing oasessf bs tra.
Harold vs. Barnum, Cal. App.
2l; 90 Pac. 104.
7S7. "
Muskogee county v. Hart, % Okla.
ll9 Pac. 132.
State v. johnson, 81 S. w. 399.
Gibbs V. Morgan. 80 N. ]. Eq. 1875.
For the foregoing reasons, be-
lieve that you are entitled to the
salary allowed clerks of the district
courts In counties OF the third class, |
and VIII o, k. your bill upon that
OASIS when the same is presented to
the board OF county commi issioners. |
IL has been argued that the above
constitutional provision should not
apply to you for the reason that your
salary Is payable only out OF the
fees OF your office. That. position is
not tenable. as our own supreme
court has held In the case of Hender-
son v. Boulder county, 81 Colo. 364.
that the constitutional provision does
apply to OFFICERS whose salaries are
payable only from that source
Respectfully submitted,
F. BARNARD WELSH,
County Attorney.