The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-11-07
TWO SALARY ACT| CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECIDES
State Officials Entitled To Pay As Members Of
 Budget Commission
lStata CanitaI Bureaul

MONTGOMERY, Ala, Nov. 6.-Ihe supreme court in decision today up held constitutionality of the budget com mission act of 1919 and of the so-called "double-salary" system inaugurated un- der that act. Payment of the attorney general. state auditor and chief examiner of accounts of salaries for services rem dered as members of the budget com mission was upheld by the decision as was the payment received by the attor- pey general under the act of l9Zo TOT furnishing legal advice to county offi- cials.
 The decision was handed down in the case of w. H. Tayloe, ct al, versus liar well G. Davis, ct al. The case orlgl- hated as suit filed in Montgomery circuit court by w. H. Tayloe and w. c. Swanson, seeking to restrain the state auditor from issuing and the state treas urer from paying warrants for the sal aries of the members of the budget com mission. The Montgomery circuit court ruled t.lat the act was valid, ana was affirmed by the supreme court today.
 The supreme court held the budget commission act to be valid in respect to salaries and otherwise, except that the provision of section 6 requiring two thirds vote of the legislature to amend a budget bill was held to be vold.
 Receive Extra Pay x The state auditor, attorney general and chief examiner of accounts receive as members of the budget commission S1 2OO per annum in addition to their salaries for other duties. The attorney general receives an additional $500 per wear under an act of 1923 requiring him to furnish opinions to county officials.
 It was contended in the suit that the budget commission act was unconstltu- tionaI. that it violated the section of the constitution forbidding the holding of two offices of profit by an official at one time, and also the section for bidding the increase or decrease ot sal aries of officers during the term Of which they were elected.
 Not Two Offices
 In it's decision the supreme court stated: "The members of the budget commission are not holding two otflces of profit within the meaning of section 2SO; of the constitution. When in the exigencies of government, it is necessary to create and define new duties, the leg islative department has the discretion to determine whether additional offices shall be created, or these duties shall be attached to and become ex-ottlclo dutles of existing offices. The power extends to the consolidation of offices resulting in abolishing one and attaching its powers and duties to the other. It mat ters not that the name commission or board is given to the body created. The officers named in the budget bill could be called the governors counsel or cab1- net when engaged in the joint duties inn posed upon them by virtue of their re- spective offices.
 Tt has long been declared by this court that for new and additional duties an incumbent of public office may be awarded extra compensation without violation of sections 11S or 2Sl borbid- ding an increase of salary during the term"
 Again, the court stated "that the duties required of members of the budget commission are substantial and that they involve added labor and responsl- bility, is not questionable. There ap- pears no purpose to create mere color able pretext to increase salaries"