Evening journal., 1921-01-25
OFFICIALS TO
KEEP PAY; WIN
6-YEAR SUIT
CONTINUED from page onel

time, was president OF City Council
and Colonel Slower was chairman OF
the finance committee. With William
e. Johnson. then building inspector,
they constituted the Board OF Assess
ment. Revision and Appeals OF VIII
mington.
Council passed an ordinance grant
ing members Of the Assessment Board
$500 as extra compensation for
extra services rendered during 1911,
in maxim gthe new city assessment,
under the present law That the or
dinance was void because II violated
the city charter and the State consti-
tuition, was alleged by the Taxpay-
ers' League, in bringing the suit to
try 10 compel Slower and White to
turn the 81 500 back 10 the city.
rule 10 show cause and prelim-
mary Injunction 10 bar payment OF
the 81 800 by the Union National
Bank, was granted, but IL subsequent
ly appeared that payment had been
made prior 10 the Issuance OF the re-
straining order. The defendants filed
a demurrer and point was made that
neither Slower nor White had voted
for the ordinance granting them the
was within its rights In granting the
extra compensation.
In February, 1915. the chancellor
overruled the demurrer and held that
the ordinance granting the compensa-
tl0n was in violation OF The city
charter. In March following, how
ever, the General Assembly passed
an act In an effort TO ratpiy and con-
firm the act OF the City Council. This
was done at the request OF Council
men and others who felt that not
Wthstanding the legal barrier set up
by the Chancellors decision, the de-
PENDANTS were entitled 10 extra COM
pensatiOn as a matter OF Justice.
In May, 1915, the Taxpayers League
contested the constltutiOnality OF the
act or the Legislature and asked for
a preliminary mandatory Injunction
30 compel the defendants 10 restore
the 81 800 TO the city treasury. The
rule was granted. The city was join
ed as a party in the court action and
the defendants contested a permanent
Injunction. Later aflldavits were
illed by various members OF Council
and city officials setting forth the
extraordinary work performed by
Messrs. Slower and White in making
the new assessment.
In July, 1916, the Chancellor filed
an opinion holding 'ithere could be
no moral claim by the members OF
the Board OF Assessment, Revision
and Appeals, for extra compensation
because It was their duty TO do the
extra work: that the extra payment
was a gratlity and a gift, and there
fore not an appropriation OF. public
funds for a r1rblic purpose" The
Chancellor also held that the act OF
the Assembly ratifying and confirm
ing the ordinance was void
Judge Hastings, then city solicitor,
as counsel for the defandants and
city. carried the case TO the Supreme
Court on a writ OF error. After a
first hearing Chief Justice Pennewill
and a majority OF the, Supreme Court
dissented from the ruling OF the
Chancellor, holding the ordinance and
act TO be In violation OF the cOnsti-
tuition because "the appropriation was
for a public and not a private pur-
poser The supreme Court also dis.
agreed with the Chancellor thai
f, "lhere could be no moral claim by
members OF the board for eXtr;
compensation because It was theil
duty To- do the extra work v Ih'
court. however, did question th'
validity OF the legislative act Of
frming the payment Of the 1850
and sustained the Chancellor's de,
cision OF the case against Slower and
White.
Motion for re-argument was made
by Judge Hastings and granted by th'
court. This re-argument was hear,
at the last June term and centereC
on The point respecting which tn
court had been in doubt, which wa:
whether the legislative act OF 1915
which sought to validate and afllrn
the payment made by Council, wal
unconstitutional and void because 4
was an unwarranted interference by
one branch Of the government. thl
legislature. with another branch
thereof. the judiciary"
In tOday's opinion and degree, thl
Supreme Court holds that the legis
lative act was constitutional because
the legislature "did not cOnstrue, bu
completed, the imperfect contrac
which the county had made.
It's act was formative, not judicial.
The opinion or the court also Is that
While 1.-The Obligations OF private
parties must be determined by thI
law in force at the time OF the trans.
actions out OF which hey accrue.
nevertheless "this principle does no
apply in case OF public corporation:
so as to preclude the passage OF cura
tive acts"
The decision OF the chancellor
therefore. was reversed and Stonel
and White can retain the $500 the,
were paid by Council in i9i4
Judge Hastings became counsel iT
the suit when Il was brought II
Chancery by virtue OF his position a
that time as city solicitor. Upon ex
plration OF his term as city solicitor
/ he continued in the case as counsel fOl
I -. "a