Case Name: BETTS v. STATE
Court: New York State Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-03-13
Citations: 132 N.Y.S. 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: BETTS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 132
Pages: 448–457

Head Matter:
(73 Misc. Rep. 503.)
BETTS v. STATE.
(Court of Claims of New York.
March 13, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Officers (§ 100 ) — Compensation — Change of Salary.
The Legislature has power, by appropriate language or by ari,appropriation or supply bill, to change the salary authorized by another statute, however fixed by other officers.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Officers, Cent. Dig. §§ 152-157; Dec. Dig. § 100. ]
2. Courts (§ 55 ) — Officers — Compensation.
The Consolidated Laws did not operate t'a change the substance of the laws consolidated therein, nor thereby to repeal by implication a provision in a supply bill fixing the salary, which provision had not been consolidated or repealed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 55. ]
Murray, J., dissenting.
Claim of George L. Betts against the State of New York. Claim dismissed.
This claim is one for the difference in the salary of the claimant, a confidential clerk of the Second Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, as fixed by the justices pursuant to Laws 1907, c. 560, and as allowed by appropriation acts of the state, being Laws 1908, c. 466, and Laws 1909, c. 432. After the salary had been fixed by the justices of the Appellate Division, as provided by the statute referred to, the Legislature made appropriations to cover the salary due at the time of the appropriation, and then provided that the salary thereafter should be “at the rate of $3,500 per year,” which was $1,000 less than the amount at which the justices had fixed the salary.
Henry Hirschberg, for claimant.
Edward R. O’Malley, D. E. Brong, and M. H. Quirk, for the State.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
RODENBECK, J.
The salary of the claimant was fixed October 1, 1907, by the justices of the Appellate Division, pursuant to chapter 560 of the Laws of 1907, now sections 102, 265, and 272 of the Judiciary Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 30), at the rate of $4,500 per year. The language of that act is as follows:
"The justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, or a majority of them, may appoint, and at pleasure remove, two confidential clerks, who shall be expert stenographers; to take and copy the opinions and decisions of the court, and to be, under the direction of the justices, the custodians of such opinions and decisions until the same shall become of public record. The salaries of such confidential clerks shall be fixed by the justices of the court'. The Comptroller of the State shall cause such salaries to be paid in equal quarterly installments, and shall annually apportion the amount thereof among the counties of the Second Judicial Department, in proportion to the taxable property of such counties respectively, according to the last assessment roll thereof. The amount so apportioned to each county shall be a county charge, and the county treasurer upon receipt thereof shall pay over the same to the Comptroller of the State." Laws 1907, c. 560.
The Legislature in Í908 made an appropriation May 22, 1908, and inserted in the supply bill of that year a clause that the salary thereafter should be at the rate of $3,500 per year. The clause in the supply bill is as follows:
"For compensation for the current fiscal year of two confidential clerks appointed by the justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, at the rate of four thousand five hundred dollars per year each until this act becomes a law, and thereafter at the rate of three thousand five hundred dollars per year each, to he refunded to the treasury pursuant to the provisions of chapter five hundred and sixty, Laws of nineteen hundred and seven, eight thousand five hundred dollars ($8,500), or so much thereof as may be necessary." Laws 1908, c. 466, p. 1597.
The questions before the court are whether or not the Legislature had the power thus to reduce the salary of the claimant and' whether or' not the language employed accomplished such a reduction.
The Legislature, as stated by Judge Vann in Koch v. Mayor, 152 N. Y. 75, 46 N. E. 170, has all the power of legislation that the people of the state can grant, except as it is restrained expressly or impliedly from the exercise of particular powers by the Constitution. Const, art. 3, § 1; Bank of Chenango v. Brown, 26 N. Y. 467; People ex rel McLean v. Flagg, 46 N. Y. 401. Subject only to the restrictions of the Constitution, the Legislature may therefore increase or diminish the salary of an incumbent of an, office. Nichols v. Mac Lean, 101 N. Y. 526, 5 N. E. 347, 54 Am. Rep. 730. The inquiry always is, What restrictions has the Constitution placed upon the- power of the Legislature, either expressly or impliedly? and it is for the claimant here to show that the attempted reduction of his salary by the supply bill was forbidden by the Constitution. People ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532. No provision has been called to the attention of the court bearing upon the subject, except the one that no provision shall be inserted in the supply bill "unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation in the bill." Const, art. 3, § 22. The provision in the supply bill of 1908, reducing the salary of the claimant from $4,500 to $3,500 a year, clearly related to the appropriation made to pay the salary of the claimant, and does not come within the prohibition referred to. The language in the supply bill, therefore, placing the salary at $3,500, instead of at $4,500, was a valid exercise of legislative power. Koch v. Mayor, 152 N. Y. 72, 46 N. E. 170.
Does the language used in the supply bill of 1908, saying that after May 22, 1908, the salary of the claimant shall be "at the rate of three , thousand five hundred dollars per year," indicate an intention on the part of the Legislature to reduce the salary from $4,500 per year to that amount? The only meaning that can be attached to this language is that the Legislature undertook to make a change in the salary. The words cannot be disregarded, and were inserted for some specific .purpose. This purpose obviously was to cut down the salary previously fixed by the justices. This intention is shown by the appropriation for 1909, which was at the rate of $3,500 per year, and by the fact that since the supply bill of 1908 the Legislature has not recognized the salary fixed by the justices, but has appropriated a smaller sum.
The appropriation of $1,500 by the Legislature of 1910 for an alleged deficiency did not indicate an intention on the part of the Legislature to increase the salary that had been fixed by the supply bill of 1908. This deficiency appropriation was an additional aílowance made to the claimant, and did not propose to raise his compensation to the rate fixed by the justices. Laws 1910, c. 512, p. 1113. The appropriation of a less amount than that at which1 claimant's salary had been fixed by the justices would not operate to reduce the salary to that amount (United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389, 6 Sup. Ct. 1185, 30 L. Ed. 164; Collins' Case, 15 U. S. Ct. Cl. 22; French's Case, 16 U. S; Ct. Cl. 419; Mitchell v. United States, 18 U. S. Ct. Cl. 281); but in this instance there is express language in the supply' bill reducing the salary to $3,500 per year.
The re-enactment in 1909 of chapter 560 of the Laws of 1907 in the judiciary law did not operate to restore the original salary of $4,500. The judiciary law was a part of the consolidation of the general substantive statutes of the state, and the members of the board who consolidated the statutes were expressly directed-not to make any change in substance.- Laws 1904, c. 664, § 2. The provision in the supply bill of 1908 fixing the salary at $3,500 per year was not incorporated in the Consolidated Laws, and was not repealed, so that, when the Consolidated Laws were adopted, it stood as a part of the: statute law of the state. The effect of the Consolidated Laws was also defined in chapter 596 of the Laws of 1909, in which it was provided that:
"The statute law of the state so far as it has been reproduced in such Consolidated Laws shall be of the same force and effect as they were before the enactment of such Consolidated Laws."
In view of the statute under which the Consolidated Laws were prepared and this construing act, the provisions in the supply bill fixing the salary at $3,500 per year remained in force after the adoption of the Consolidated Laws, and the salary of the claimant has been at the rate of $3,500 per year since May 22, 1908.
The claim in this instance only relates to the compensation to which the claimant was entitled from May 22, 1908, to July 1, 1910, and the decision here is that for that period the salary of the claimant was fixed by the supply bill of 1908 at $3,500 per year, and has not been legally changed, and that the claimant has been paid in full by the state.
The claim should therefore be dismissed.