St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1916-09-09

STIMULATED were naid him. / take it that the 100000 paid by the
State per annum is to compensate compensate tne ol u.s. ao1;o s'i ;nr;es School
boards, etc, but 10 one will contend that the police Jurles u sehoo,
boards are under any obligations to pay anybody a salary, Tor legal
services for # is too well known to even point out the police juries
and school boards have no right to employ counsel o men - -
legal services. The district attorney under the a" represent enes'
boards and public bodies without compensation.
First, let me quote in full the decision of Attorney General f1eas
ant on this point, which was rendered and made public on July I5!n
1912 and which was accepted as final and binding by every osI1c'
attorney in the state with possible exception OF the dlstlle1 as'o = e.
of jefferson parish, and the district attorney OF the parishes y D..
Landry and Evangeine: -
DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN NOT CONTRACT sr, WITH pEa P ? oa4M
JURIEs FOR COMPENSATION OF FIXED SUM PER ANNoA
IN LIEU OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION
New Orleans, La, July Ii, 1917.
aHon. John R. Hunter, District Attorney, Alexandra, La:
Dear sir-Your letter Of yesterday came to me today, ana !
note that you quote from Judge Gulons OPINION I Aarcn :: NV =
District Attorney Robira, relative to police Jur1es entering INTO con-
tracts with district attorneys to pay them hxed salaries N nu Q
fees. The quotation reads as follows:
" I have your letter of the LIST instant ana ID reply l Dag -
that at the extra session of 1877, Act No. 80 was passed, and
that, by Section 4 thereof, police juries have the right e make
contracts with all officers who receive compensation lns'eaa q
fees, commission, etc. This authority would, u my y opm pun,
authorize the Police Jury Of the parishes N your dls'r1e1 70 enter
into such contracts with you,
1T is perhaps needless to say that I have the very highest re
gard and respect for the views of Judge Guion in legal as well as
other matters, but I am constrained to disagree with MN n the pre-
ent instance. mo+aa
opinion can possibly stand under Articles 125 and $50 OF the Con
stitution of 1898.
"Said Section 4 of Act NO. 81 of the extra session y loi' % 90
follows: MT ~ It,
iu1ies of the several parishes in this state may and are hereby
authorized and empowered to contract for fixed and determined
sums of money with those officers who receive IN compensation
for services under existing laws fees, commissions or mileage
from said parishes; provided, the compensation allowed snail not
exceed fifty per centum of the fees allowed by the laws OF the
ssThis law was passed under the Constitution of 1858, which sxed
the district attorneys salary at fifteen hundred dollars ($l500).
Said constitution made no reference to fees whatever, nor did it pro
hibit the district attorney from receiving additional compensation IN
the way of fees or by contracts with the Police Jury. Hence it
would seem that the said act was good under the Constitution Of 1868.
tBut you will notice that there is a provision N Section 4 OF the
act which practically renders it valueless.
q Provided, the compensation allowed shall not exceed fifty
per centum g the fees allowed by the VS. Of the state,
eff contracts were entered into strictly in accordance With the
foregoing provision either the contract could not be entered INTO
because It could not be foreseen how much the fees each year would
amount to in order that fifty per cent thereof might be previously
determined and budgeted by the Police Jury, or because, Il the pre-
yious years convictions were taken as a basis. a contract based there
on would be far less profitable to the district attorney than if he re
NAMED on fee basis, and naturally he would take the fees and not
enter into the contract.
by some Of the district attorneys who have entered into said coll
tracts with police iuries. and calculating the total amount Of fees
that would result from the convictions shown therein, I find said
total amount of fees to be oftentimes less than fifty per eentum Of
said contract saariesinstead Of vice versa as provided by the said
law; and that the lawwas therefore not followed, but used as an ex-
cuse to pay the district attorney far in excess of the fees allowed by
law instead of fifty per centum of said fees.
ssBut aside from the question of arriving at the true amount of
compensation under a contract authorized by the foregoing law, J
believe that the said law is no longer in effect.
article 125 of the Constitution of 1898, referring to the dis
trict attorney, provides that:
HE shall receive a salary of $1,000 per annum. He shall
also receives fees; but no fee shall be allowed in criminal cases.
except on conviction, which fees shall not exceed five edollars in
cases of misdemeanor.'
eArtide $50 Of the Constitution further says:
"sNo officer whose salary is fixed by the Constitution shall
be allowed any fees or perquisites of Office except where other
wise provided for by this constitution
"It is my opinion that the foregoing articles of the Constitution
have utterly abrogated Section 4 of Act No. 30 (E. 81 Of 1877 in 50
far as it applies to district attorneys. The only cempensations al
lowed them is the salary of $1,000 fixed by the Constitution and such
fees as the Legislature, may fix, provided the fees in misdemeanor
cases shall not exceed five dollars for each conviction.
ssThis line of reasoning is upheld in the case of State vs.. Hender-
son, 12O La. Reports, decided in the year 1907.
sssaid decision indicates that the Constitution, having fixed the
salary. and the Legislature (Acts No. SO of 1880 and Act No. 227 of
1910) the fees, of the district attorney, he must receive his compensa-
ton from said sources, and no other, in criminal matters.
very truly yours,
"R. g. PLEASANT,
Attorney General -
But my opponent contends that, under the resolution of the
Evangeline parish police jury, he was entitled to his fees when the
accused was called upon to pay them. This contention will not hold
a minute, and as even laymen must agree in view of the following
documents:
RESOLUTION OF THE EvANGELINE POLICE JURY,
PASSED APRIL 9Th, 1911.
BE it Resolved, by the Police Jury Of the Parish Of Eyangeine,
That the salary Of the District Attorney be, and is hereby, fixed at
the sum of $3.50 per year.
Adopted at session of Police Jury held April 6, 1916.
I certify that above is a true and correct copy.
JEAILE PUCHEU, Clerk of Police Jury.