DocketNumber: No. 4-6706
Citation Numbers: 158 S.W.2d 929, 203 Ark. 736
Judges: McHANEY, J.
Filed Date: 2/9/1942
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
It may have been unwise, if not improvident, to fix the compensation of all county treasurers at two per centum of all funds coming into their hands as treasurers, to be paid out of the respective funds, with certain funds excepted. But we are not concerned with that question. That act 78 of the Acts of 1941 does fix those fees appears to me to be indubitable, and the power of the General Assembly to fix that compensation is also indubitable.
Now, the act does not contain a repealing clause, yet the majority say it repealed act 146 of the Acts of 1939. Certainly it did. And if it repealed that act, it repealed all other acts in conflict with it.
In the case of Louisiana on Refining Co. v. Rainwater,
Among other cases to the same effect are the following: Coats v. Hill,
Act 78 is a general act, applicable to every county in the state, and if it is anything at all more than a mere scrap of paper, it is a Salary Act. It can be nothing else, if it is anything at all.
It is provided in amendment No. 7 to the constitution that no measure approved by a vote of the people shall be amended or repealed by the General Assembly, or by any city council, except upon a yea and nay vote, on a separate roll call, of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house of the General Assembly, or of the city council, as the case may be. Act 78 was passed in the Senate by a vote of 28 to none, and in the House by an affirmative vote of 69 to 3 negative votes, so that a sufficient vote was cast to repeal even those acts initiated and adopted by the vote of the people. However, it is conceded that Carroll county has no initiated salary act. Acts relating to the salary of the county treasurer of that county were passed by the General Assembly, and it is, of course, within the power of the General Assembly to repeal that legislation, and act 78 accomplishes that result.
The majority say that act 78 does not purport to be a salary act, or other compensatory act for county treasurers. Why not? The majority say the act was merely intended to create a source of revenue accruing to such *Page 741 office, from which the salary of the incumbent could be paid. But that is not the way the act reads. It says: "County treasurer shall be allowed fees as follows: Two per centum on all finds coming into their hands as treasurer" except from certain funds. What can the phrase, "allowed fees" mean except that they shall be paid the fees? There is nothing in the act about accumulating a fund out of which to pay fees. The finds out of which to pay fees accrue as finds are paid into the treasurer's hands, and the act provides that he shall be allowed two per centum of these.
It does not appear to be questioned that the General Assembly has the power to pass a general salary act for all county treasurers. If act 78 does not do this, it has no meaning. In the case of Dozier v. Ragsdale,
I, therefore, most respectfully, but very earnestly, dissent from the conclusion of the majority that the act does not allow county treasurers a commission or compensation of "two per centum on all finds coming into their hands as treasurers, and to be paid out of the respective funds," except from certain funds not here involved and against which no commission is charged or asked.
Curlin v. Watson , 187 Ark. 685 ( 1933 )
Dozier v. Ragsdale , 186 Ark. 654 ( 1932 )
McDonald v. Wasson , 188 Ark. 782 ( 1934 )
Faulkner v. Faulkner , 186 Ark. 1082 ( 1933 )
Dicken v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 188 Ark. 1035 ( 1934 )
State Ex Rel. Trimble v. Kantas , 191 Ark. 22 ( 1935 )
Security Mtg. Co. v. Herron , 174 Ark. 698 ( 1927 )
Johnson County v. Hartman , 177 Ark. 1009 ( 1928 )