| Show NEW STATE SALARY LAW CONSTITUTIONAL Upheld by Supreme Court in An Opinion Written by Justice Baskin and Concurred in by Justice Bartch and Acting Jus Justice Justie I tice Bce tie Morse Governor Will Wil Get a Year Hereafter In ln Instead a stead of 2000 Pay of Other Officers Also Increased Governor Wells Wels will wi receive his hil In Increase Increase crease of or salary nt at time the rate te of oC 1000 1010 In Instead stead of at 2000 from tho the state treasury ns us provided for by the last legislature ture That Is In he ho has arrears of salary amounting to 10 70 coming to him Tho The decided In a peremptory Supreme court BO so 10 11 tory torr writ of or mandate which was WIS Issued today tou Tho The writ was WIS drawn by Justice Baskin and concurred In by Justice Dartch and District Judge Morse sit alt sitting ting for tor Chief Justice Minor Miner who was did not sit alt si In tim the ease cne Time The Supreme court construes the mean meanIng lag Ing of or time the constitution to tl be that the tho salaries Ins of ot state wore were fixed only until otherwise o provided by the time law lawIn In other words that tho the action acton of ot the th legislature In raising the tho salaries ot of tim the state tate officers was sas not a n change In the time meaning of ot the word used usell In Inthe time the constitution which only Intended the tM salaries fixed therein to bo be temporary temporary ary 11 salaries to stand until some state legislature should fix stated amounts This Thil holds the court has never Iver been done dono until the time last legislature took the tho matter mater up tip and passed e a law authorizing the time Increase nut Hut this timis being nn on accomplished pushed fact no legislature cnn can herent hereafter ter tel Increase or decrease these so 51 Al as to effect tho limo Incumbents then In office This Is 18 the matter mater In II a n nutshell The Time effect erect of the granting of the writ by the tho Supreme court will wi be he not only to tn raise the tho governors salary alary from 2 to oo Time The secretary will 11 get Instead ot of 2000 but the auditor will wi get cut 2000 20 In Instead Instead stead of 1000 GOO the tho treasurer will willgot wi got get et 1500 Instead of ot 1000 0 time the attorney general will wi receive 2000 Instead ot oc o 1600 and limo HIP superintendent of Instruction will LIhI wi draw 1800 Instead of ot othis his present pro ent salary of or 1500 Time The only question queston Involved was who whether ther timer or no n tho tim law passed at nt tho time recent of or the legislature should bo ho construed co PO ns os to affect the time Incumbents In olce Tho The court holds that It does doeA on the that tho time salaries of ot state Mate officers have never yet yot been en fixed l ed It n that when the legislature by I enactment either I or ex c enactments either Implied by b or ex cx expressly pressly construes a provision of ot a n stat lat statute statute ute uto Or a 1 constitution In doubtful cases I the courts ourt will wi accept tho tim legislative construction and enforce the time provision In accordance therewith If It t the ambiguous u Otis ous language IR of time tho th opinion Is IA such ns as n asto to admit of or such construction The opinion being a n matter In which general Interest wIll wi bo to bt through throughout out thIs anti and other stateS state Is II published I In full fui Cul below blow Tue Tho Opinion In Pull iii In the Court of oC tho the State of ot Utah The Tho State of oC Utah ex cx Heher M 1 Wells vs Charles S 5 Tinge State Auditor respondent Upon the tho petition of faber n ber M I Wells Veil ell Governor of ot the State nn an alternative writ of at mandate was 8 issued out of this court urt directing tue tho respondent Charles CharlesS CharlesB S B as 1 state lUte tto auditor to draw and d deliver delver to tho the relator a n warrant or warrants for tor the tho th unpaid balance bance of oC his salary as IS Governor alleged In the time pe pa petition petion titian tion to be due and unpaid and autti all for tor which the time respondent refused to Issue to tho the relator a 1 state stale warrant Time The respondent demurred to the pe po petition tian and nl alternative writ on the tho ground that they failed to state facts to constitute n cause caul of ac ae acIon acIon Ion or Justify Justy the Issuance of ot a 0 tory tor or writ of mandate It I appears from torn time the facts admitted by the demurrer that the relator was nt It tho time general generl election In II November Novem r WOO 1900 duly elected Governor of ot the tho State amid ami that lint the time latin tell for tor which he was wasso wasso so 0 began on the tho first Monday of ot Januar 1801 1 01 and that upon that da In mm he duly qualified entered upon the duties of his Imis olce amid nud over since hums his continued to discharge dl tho the duties of or tf the same that at the time he was wits so 8 elected and when hen imen he qualified and en entered entered upon tho the dutes duties of his ollice the salary RaIn of t it the time office of Governor was fin nt al fixed by Art Amt 7 sec 20 O of oC the time which Is as n follows Const The governor secretary of state auditor treasurer attorney general superintendent of or public Instruction and such other state and antI district oft officers 01 core cers as ns may mi be provided for tor by law In 1 filial Rhal receive for tor their services terly a n compensation ns as al fixed by I law In ia which shall not nt be diminished or In tn Increased increased creased to so an as n to affect the salary of any nn officer during luring hit his term or the time term next ne t ensuing after the tho adoption of this constitution unless tiniest a I vacancy occur In which case ene the tho successor of the tho for tor niT mr Incumbent shall hal receive only such salary ns as may many be hI provided by b law lal at atthe atthe atthe the time of ot his election electon or The compensation of oC the time pro provided provided vided for by b this article artcle until ether ther etherie therIse Ise ie provided by 1 law Is 18 fixed as lS tel fol follows lows Governor two thousand dollars per lIeI annum etc That the salary of time the governor HO urn 10 led by said section aMton of ot tho th constitution was riot not otherwise fixed by bylaw 11 b blaw law during durinA the time term ensuing tho time adoption lion tion ton of o tIn the constitution but by b an nn art act artof of tho time legislature approved by hy tho time gay gov governor door on March 1 14 tOOl 1901 nn which went wP Into effect on 01 the time following May th salary of ot tho the governor was fixed tbell at atMO 1000 MO That hat act In form Is 18 ns as follows An act net fixing the salaries of if state officers and 1111 providing for pay payment mont meat thereof Ho no It enacted by the time legislature of the time state of ot Utah Uth Section 1 1 Salaries of Certain 01 core cers Fixed The annual salaries of or the Ih following state st te officers are ore hereby fixed aa as follows Governor four thousand dollars I secretary of state three thou thousand thousand sand dollars state slate treasurer hundred dollars state two thousand dollars attorney general generi tw two thousand dollars state superintendent I dolas hundred h of public Instruction eighteen dollars dolar Sec 2 To be bo Paid Pall Quarterly The Time gee salaries of the state officers In section one specified shall hali be bo paid quarterly and the state auditor shall draw his hi warrant upon time tho th state treasurer at It tho tims end of f each for tor the time amount of salary ealar duo due each elch of such uh officers Dan Byan DA a approved March rh 25 20 11 an nn appropriation of tho the sums necessary necessary sary sar to pay I the annual salaries fixed by b tho time sail said sah act of oC March 14 11 1 for the time years 1901 1001 and 1902 was WiS made Inde the time constitutionality Neither the time validity nor of the act net Increasing tho the sal salaries salaries 1 aries Is questioned It 1 Is conceded that the act properly applies to and the salaries of future Incumbents of time the mentioned but time the parties hurtles dis IS disagree disagree agree as aM to whether It I can cnn under time the provisions of section 20 article 7 i be legitimately applied so as to fix the time salaries of ot time the th incumbents whose elec eie election lion tion lon occurred and whoso terms began an before the tle act was as passed No other question queston Is Involved It I Is clear from froni the language of the time act and from the fact tact that during the time same Slime term at nt which It I was enacted the legislature appropriated appropriate money loney to jo moot the time Increased salary of time the officers mentioned who imo had before the time passage passa of oC said Mid act been elected and were then thon serving the time term for which they thoy had hall been chosen that time the ho legislature In Intended Intended intended tended the time act to o 0 apply to and Increase the salary of oC the then servo serving log ing their terms This ThIl appropriation Is 18 Isby isby by h Implication a n legislative construe lion ton of time the act and the section seeton of the Under consideration This being BO so 10 tinder the well wel eli settled lole of ot construction the court court must con eon construe construe the tile act set In accordance with tho the legislative Intent unless It I Is 18 clear be bo beyond beyond yond reasonable doubt that the section of ot the tho Constitution quoted quote limits the act to so as ni only anI to apply to and LIZ Ix the time i salaries of Ihn tima officers elected el ete anti and In Ih Installed lr I stalled after Its Is enactment In tIme the cute cane of Ogden vs S minders 12 Wheat 21 79 Mr 1 Justice Washing Washington ton In his opinion said saidI sid sidI I 1 shall now conclude this thin opinion by b repenting time the which w candor compelled me ate to make makeIn maJ In tim its commencement that the time question which I have been Iwen examining l I is In Involved vo r In difficulty and doubt But Dut If I i could coull rest ret my m opinion In favor of at time the of ot the time law li on un which thIA on no other othur ground than this tills doubt dOlbt so felt tel anti and acknowledged edged that alone would In my m estima estimation tion ton be ho 1 a satisfactory 1 t It 01 vindication Uton of ot It ItI It I Is la but decent r fn rt due lul to the wisdom the time Integrity end and RII the Ihl patriot patriotism ism of the time legislative ln Ivo body bd by h which I any awIs passed panned PUle to presume In 11 I favor of Its I validity until Its II violation of ot the time constitution eon Is II proved beyond sit nil 11 yea rea reasonable na doubt douht hai hs b been Thil hl always oln en the t e language of ot this court fourt when that has called cal d for Cor or UH its Il decision In County Supervisors Supervisor orl vs VI HZ f e t S 8 Ills it Is Mid acid Brogden 1 I In the time I opinion delivered by 1 Mr r Justice Julo liar Ian that It J certainly cannot be 1 said sll that a I different construction Is I re rim required by t the obvious Import of ot the words worris of or the time statue limit Hut If I there timor Were room rom for tor two constructions both equal equally eual equally ly I obvious and reasonable the court curt must In deference to the time legislature of the tM tm state assume that It did Ill not hot over overlook overlook look lo k the provisions of at the constitution In d the not act nt of ot 1871 1171 to take ef cf effect feet teC Our duty dut therefore Is II to adopt that construction which without doing violence to the tho fair meaning of tIm the w ki words used time the statute Into liar har harmon worl of ot the tho constitution mony mon with wih time the provisions const ion General words In the riot act should not be bo so construed as to give an mm effect erect to It beyond the time legislative power and thereby render the act unconstitutional al But nut If possible a 1 construction should be given to It that will wi render It free treo from constitutional objection and I the presumption must be that the tho Intended to grunt grant such uchi rights as nR were legitimately within Its power Again Sykes vs S Mayor etc 66 5 Miss MI M 16 14 un It ought never to be 10 assumed that the tha I depart dopart department meat ment of the time government Intended to 01 or assume power prohibited to It tt And such h construction If f the words will viii admit of it might to b bi be put on Its Is I mako It consistent legislation as ni will wi I with wih the supreme law Const COlst et ct seq Coast Conat Law sec see 28 Sutherland JuCkA Stat StR 1 Const Coast sec see In Adams vs vo Howe Hoo ct et al ai 14 1 Mass M O 35 Jt it is said We Ve must premise hat hit so much J respect Is 18 due duo to any leg net solemnly passed and ad admitted omitted Into the tIme statute hook book that a 11 acourt acourt court of or law II which may lay be called upon will premIse promise It to tim tobe tobe timbe to decide Its validity wi I be 1 constitutional unless the time contrary clearly clearl appears So that lu In tn any nn case of the tho kind substantially doubtful time the law would have hlo It I Its force The Time legisla legislature legislature ture tue Is In the first Instance the time Judge rf rt C Its own constitutional powers and It I itIs Is IB Is II only ani when manifest t assumption t of oC authority or ot of it shall shah appear that the time Judicial power will refute refuse to execute It wi When the thE legislature by enactments either I or expressly construes to 11 e constitution a provision of ot a statute or a n ton tion 1 In doubtful ea CU eases B the tl courts courtl will wi thi time the legislative construction and ad enforce time tile In accordance If it the th ambiguous language therewith t tor I ot or time the provision t In tee I nuch uch n II as admits of oe Buch Kuch construction Counsel Coun l for tor the admitted In his hil argument that time the 1 In Intended tended that the timp n not t should houll apply app to the officers omet their term Irl at the t time It was wan WI p M l anti and an that there IB is doubt whether under unde time the provisions of the th constItutiOn It does d 1 not so 1 apply Ap ApI Jf If lon In tn that tulon I a reasonable doubt dOlbt exists I then under tinder the established rule rules of construction tIme the Intention of the cn should prevail The Th contention of f the he respondent Is A untenable unless the time term law la a U as used In this the of it time lite tle restitution re referred I to Iton 0 clearly Includes the tue Itself f lon Although I lel time the term law in its Iti Il broad brod constItutions It Is Includes Mt sense ORe I Nt article le i 7 clear front from lt its Ita connection In art cler M tO and other sections Motions section setton 1 of ot tho the Constitution that It I was Wa not used mused In M its II nen I wn sense but bu mere merely law of ot ly I a as a n designation statutory A The term law la occurs In the time sectionS section of section SO 20 of o salu article articie 7 i preceding seton 3 Ilu each eath In tn instance article sixteen and In Instance artcle stance the time term lenn l II is used Il In tile Ih sense en of ot statutory law taw The Time term ten i II Is also alo ala n umed l lIn In numerous other articles article of or the Con Constitution In the senie nf This Is la ap rip apparent Ime parent laTent from the connection In which that hat term torm Is l u ed In saId Mid IJ section lection cUonI I 1 article 7 H It Is in tn section artcle that I officers provided of time the executive depart delart Shall Hhall perform such duties as n are ar provided by Jy tills this Constitution and as nf may be provided by law lai 11 Section 15 13 provides that Until other othor otherwise wise lae provided 1 by law the officers |
