Arizona republican., 1919-03-24


 now
 Another reason is the fact that the state needs to have some money left to employ more men rather than pay ing bigger salaries to those already in the public service. The entire letter conveying the executive disapproya follows:
 EXECUTIVE OFFICE
 STATE HOUSE
 PHOENIX, ARIZONA
 March %. 1919. Hon. Nit Simms,
 Secretary of State,
 State House,
 Phoenix, Arizona.
 Dear Sir:
 l herewith return, with my disap- proval, Senate Bill No. 36, entitled, An Act, to amend Section 1, of Chap ter 61, (sub senate bill number ID Session Laws, regular session of the Third Legislature, classifying the counties of the State of Arizona, ac- cording to their assessed valuation of taxable property and establishing the salaries of the state and county of ficers and their deputies and em- ployes and regulating the employment of deputies, clerks and employees, and repeating Chapter 2, Title 15, Civil Code, Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1913," and state my reasons for such disapproval as follows:
 This bill purports to amend Section One CD of Chapter 61 of Session Laws of 1917, and attempts to come into the law of this state as an amendment to a law, the effect of which is still subject of question in two cases which are pending, undetermined in the supreme court of this state. The ques- tion involved as to the cases just men toned is as to the power of the legis- lature to increase the salary of an of ficer during the terms of office for which he was elected and involves a judicial application to Section 1 of Chapter 61. Session Laws of 1917, of the provision of the state constitu- tion which reads as follows:
 The legislature shall never grant any extra compensation to any public officer, agent, servant, or contractor. after the services shall have been rendered or the contract entered into, nor shall the compensation Of any public officer be increased or dimin- ished during his term of office"
 The history of the salary laws of this state, both as to the county and state salaries, has been one of the greatest confusion. The state consti- tuition provided an amount for the salaries of the offices therein named with three exceptions. The First State Legislature, in 1913, enacted a salary law, which covered the same list of state officers as would be covered by Senate Bill No. 36. The Third Legis- lature enacted Chapter 61 Of the Ses- sion Laws of 1917, (the law to be amended by Bill No. 36.) and such in- formation as I then had as to the time when that legislature intended that law to take effect Gnformation based upon legislative debate and discussion of the law, all prior to the time when acting as governor of the state, I ap- proved the bill of 19f7) was all to the same end, that said law would not af- 1 feet the salary of state officers theT | in office during their terms.
 My further information as to tht | reasons for the emergency clause at 1 tached to Chapter 61, Session Law: ] of 1917, was then to the effect tha 1 such clause was to meet the require ments for an immediate effect to tn, county classification and county sal ary portion of the same law, due t' | a decision of the supreme court whicl had annulled the county classification and county salary law of 1912, witt | it's amendments and e-enactmentl in 1913.
 Notwithstanding the known inten of the legislature when it acted il 191s which intent was to provide county salary law to be given i'm mediate effect. and a state salary lav | to take effect as to future state of ficers. it is a fact that test cases ar pending in he supreme court base; upon claims that the salaries of judge | of the superior courts Of the state, 0 | the attorney general of the state, am | the governor of the state. were b, virtue of Chapter 61. immediately am at once increased. These suits in volve claims for additional amount beyond the amounts fixed as tn salaries of the respective officers a the time they accepted nomination for office, the time when they wer elected to office, and the time whe each tok the oath or office and as sumed the duties thereof.
 It is not necessary to dwell at lengt upon the reasons of public policy in tended by the people of the state whe they included the above quoted con stitutional provisions in the instru ment which was to be a mandator litigation upon legislative powers. Tn reason for those provisions are con cisely stated by Chief Justice Alfre Franklin in one of the decisions in volving a change of salary, from whic opinion I quote the following:
 Having its basic idea in principle of the soundest public policy that public officer should receive that com pensation fixed by law without in crease or diminution during his ter1 of office, in other words, that com pensation in the contemplation of tn aspirant and thes people when the elected him, the constitution has place an inhibition upon the law -makin power in this language: The legis lature shall never grant any extr compensation to any public office agent or servant, or contractor, aftt the services shall have been rendere or the contract entered into, nor sha the compensation of any public o1 ficer be increased or diminished duI ing his term of office.' (Art. ". Set tion r. Constitution of Arizona When the salaries or compensate of public officers have been definitel fixed or prescribed by law, either | the constitution of the state or by son statute made in pursuance thereof, u salary or compensation so prescribe