Arizona republican., 1917-08-02

ElTQS.
 of the county treasurer, county asses sor,' county recorder, county attorney and county school superintendent un- der the 1917 law.
 Following is County Attorney Laney's opinion:
 August l. 1917. The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa
 County,
 Phoenix, Arizona.
 Gentlemen:
 You have asked for the opinion of the county attorney as to the basis upon which the salaries of county and pre- cinct officers, and the deputies, clerks. assistants and stenographers of county officers. should be paid.
 In the light of the decision of our supreme court in the case of Hunt vs. Mohave county and the more recent decision of Judge Lyman, sitting in Yavapai county, in the case of Steph- ems. ct al vs. the board of supervisors of Yavapai county, ct al, 1 am of opin- ion that in order to be entirely safe in its action, your board should pay the following county officers accord ing to the law in force immediately prior to statehood, towit: County assessor, county attorney, county re- corder, county school superintendent, county treasurer and chairman and members of the board of supervisors This will work considerable hardship upon many of these officers, including the county attorney, whose salary will be thereby reduced $500 per annum from what he has heretofore received, but if your board should pay greater salaries than they may legally pay then the members thereof would be liable for the excess so paid. The above mentioned case decided in Yavapai county, 1 am informed is to be appealed to the supreme court, in which case it is hoped that the con- fusion as to official salaries will be cleared up It may be that the supreme court will hold that since these off cers were created by our constitution. the salaries attached thereto could not be fixed by laws enacted prior to their creation. If the supreme court should hold that these officers should re- ceive their salaries under the Act of 1917, then they might collect, and your board might legally pay them the balance.
 As to the clerk of the superior court. the sheriff, justices of the peace and constables, I am of opinion that these officers should be paid pursuant to the provisions of the county classifi- cation act of 1917. Under the law as it existed immediately prior to state l hood, each of these officers received | his compensation through the fees col | lected by him. but Article XXI, Sec ton 1I of our constitution provides | that all officers shall receive fixed salaries, and that none of them shall receive any fees for their own use. l Accordingly, the county classified ton act of 1917 is the first valid law fixing the salaries of these latter county 1 officers and under which the salaries of these precinct officers may be de- | termined, and in my opinion should control as to these officers.
 As regards deputies, clerks. assist ants and stenographers attached to county offices, whether their positions were created or their salaries changed by the county classification act lof 1917, l am of opinion that they should said act of 1917.
 The reason why it would appear un- safe for the board to pay the off cers named in the first group above set forth according to the act of 1917 is that in the decisions above men, toned the courts apparently held that the salaries of these officers were fixed by the statutes of 1901, with amendments, and because our consti- tuition provides that the salary of ar officer cannot be changed during his term of office But in the case o1 deputies, clerks, assistants and sten- ographers, they have no fixed terms o office and this constitutional provision does not apply to them In a note or this subject in 26 Am. & Eng Ann Cases, page 316, the following rule supported by numerous authorities there cited, is laid down:
 Tt is well settled that a constitu- tional provision against a change ir the salary of public officer during his term of office, does not apply to an office held during the pleasur, of the appointing power, because on, having such tenure does not holt the office for term within the mean ing of the constitutional provision" Respectfully submitted, l.. M LANEY, County Attorney