Court Opinion

ID: 9817254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:10:28.012194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:40.962045
License: Public Domain

ON Rehearing.
The defendant in error in his petition for rehearing on account of section 33 of the county fee and salary act of March 19, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, c. 69, p. 141), which provides that “the salary of all county officers shall be based upon the federal census of 1910, and each additional ten years thereafter,” insists that said act did not go into effect until after the federal census of 1910 had been taken pursuant to Act Cong. July 2, 1909, c. 2, 36 St. at L., p. 1 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 557). Section 1 of said act (36 St. at L., p. 1) provides:
“That a census of the population, * * * shall be taken by the director of the census in the year nineteen hundred and ten and every ten years thereafter.”
Section 20 of said act (36 St. at L., p. 7) provides:
“That the enumeration of the population required by section one of this act shall be taken as of the fifteenth day of April.”
Section 32 of said act (36 St. at L., p. 10) provides:
“That the director of the census is hereby authorized, at his discretion, upon the written request of the Governor of any state or territory, or of a court of record, to furnish such Governor or court of record with certified copies of so much of the population or agricultural returns as may be requested, upon the payment of the actual cost of making such copies, and one dollar additional for certification.”
The salary and fee act of March 19, 1910, was evidently framed in view of the act of Congress of July 2, 1909, and that was that the federal census would be taken as of the date of April 15, 1910. Under section 58 of article 5 of the Constitution, all acts, except in case of an emergency expressed in the act, *579are to take effect 90 clays after the adjournment of the Legislature. It is not essential to determine here as to whether the Legislature might provide that a certain act should not take effect or be applicable until a certain future date.
Section 1 of the act of March 19, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, p. 129), provides:
“The clerk of the district court, the clerk of the superior court and the clerk of the county court shall charge and collect the following fees for service by them respectively rendered and none others. * * * ”
Section 9 of said act provides:
“At each monthly meeting of the board of county commissioners the clerk of the district court, the clerk of the superior court, the clerk of the county court, the. county clerk and the register of deeds shall each file a verified report of the work of the preceding month showing the total fees charged in each case and the total fees collected in each case, and shall pay all of such fees into the county treasury and -file duplicate receipts therefor with the county clerk.”
Section 17 of said act provides:
“All county, township and district officers who are required by law to make monthly or quarterly reports to the board of county commissioners who fail or refuse to make such reports, or who make a false or fraudulent report, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and in addition to his punishment he shall forfeit his office, and when any such officer shall fail or refuse to account for or to pay over any money in his official capacity, he shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement, and in no case shall any county officer retain any perquisites of his office; and provided, further, that if any officer neglect or refuse to charge the fees provided by law, he shall forfeit double the amount thereof to be . deducted from his salary, or to be collected by civil action against such officer or his bondsmen.”
Section 30 of said act is as follows:
“The clerk of the district court, the clerk of the superior court, the county clerk, the county treasurer, and the register of deeds shall receive as their full compensation the following salaries. * * * ”
Section 31(a) of said act provides:
“The fees herein provided for the clerk of the district court, the clerk of the superior court, and the clerk of the county court, the sheriff and the county attorney as provided in this act, and *580all costs in the prosecution whether of the grade of misdemeanor or felony, shall in case of conviction be taxed as costs in the case and a judgment rendered therefor; and award execution for the collection of the same as on execution in civil actions.”
Section 32 of said act provides:
“The salary of all county officers, their clerks and deputies, shall be paid monthly out of the county treasury by order of the board of county commissioners; provided, however, that no salary shall be allowed or paid until their reports are filed and approved by the board of county commissioners, as in this act provided.”
Section 33 of said act provides:
“The salary of all county officers shall be based upon the federal census of 1910, and each additional ten years thereafter.”
There is nothing in said act to indicate that it was not intended for it to go into effect as provided by section 58 of article 5 of the Constitution. Said act, having gone into effect 90 days after the adjournment-of the Legislature, applied to every county in the state. The fact that the federal census of 1910 may not have been officially promulgated as to Oklahoma county on the date that said act went into effect, to wit, June 17, 1910, did not prevent said act from applying to said county. Under the salary and fee act of March 19, 1910, it was the duty of the defendant .in error, as clerk of the district court of said county to file a verified report of his work for the preceding month, showing the total fees charged in each case and the total fees collected in each case, and to pay all such fees into the county treasury. Then the county owed him his salary for such month, but said salary co.uld not be computed until the federal census had been promulgated, which was to be taken as of the date of April 15, 1910.. This construction is reasonable, and gives a fair construction to the entire act. Especially is this so as to the office here in' question where there was no statute in force regulating the charges therefor.
It follows that the petition for rehearing will be overruled.
TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, KANE, and'DUNN, JJ., concur.