Cain v. Woodruff County

• Decision Date: 01 March 1909
• Citation: 117 S.W. 768,89 Ark. 456
• Parties: CAIN v. WOODRUFF COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

117 S.W. 768

89 Ark. 456

CAIN v. WOODRUFF COUNTY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 1, 1909

Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Harry M. Woods, for appellant.

1. The sheriff, in keeping the jail and feeding prisoners, does an official act. The Constitution, in creating the office of sheriff, did not define his duties; hence it is within the power of the Legislature to enact laws defining his duties. In performing the duties thus defined, he acts in his official capacity. Art. 7, § 46, Const. 1874; 27 Ark 176; Kirby's Dig. § § 4399, 4400; 137 Mass 191; 12 Fla. 652; 94 S.W. 328; 39 Mo.App. 161; 71 Ill.App. 280; 18 Tex. 188; 38 Neb. 131.

2. The Legislature, under art. 16, § 4, Const., has authority to fix the fees of the sheriff. In construing a statute, this court will sustain it unless there is a clear incompatibility between the act and the Constitution, and it will resolve all doubts in favor of the validity of the act. 76 Ark. 197; 11 Ark. 481; 15 Ark. 664; 60 Ark. 343; 56 Ark. 485; 39 Ark. 353. The Legislature having the power to fix the fees of officers, it is not within the province of the county court to change or alter the compensation provided by the law. 64 Ark. 162.

J. F. Summers, for appellee.

1. The committing of a prisoner to jail by the sheriff or other officer, for which he is allowed a fee as provided by law, is an official act; but the mere feeding of a prisoner after he is committed is not an official act within the spirit and meaning of the Constitution.

2. The act fixing the fee for feeding prisoners at seventy-five cents per day is in conflict with art. 7, § 28, of the Constitution. The exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the county court as to local concerns of the respective counties is a constitutional restriction upon the Legislature with respect to local concerns of the several counties. Cooley on Const. Lim. 238; Id. 127; 57 L.R.A. 775; 56 L.R.A. 893; 48 L.R.A. 479.

OPINION

FRAUENTHAL, J.

The appellant, who is the sheriff and jailer of Woodruff County, presented to the county court of that county for allowance his account against that county for the keeping and feeding of certain prisoners. His account amounted to $ 483.50, and was based on fixing the rate or charge for each prisoner per day at seventy-five cents. The county court allowed him the sum of $ 417.50 thereon, being at the rate of sixty-five cents per day for each prisoner; and refused to allow the difference of $ 66. The appellant then appealed to the circuit court, and in that court this case was tried by the court sitting as a jury upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the only issue in the case is whether the appellant is entitled under the law to seventy-five cents per day for keeping and feeding each prisoner as provided by Act No. 136 of the General Assembly of Arkansas of 1907, entitled "An act to amend section 4402 of Kirby's Digest." Acts, 1907, p. 328. If for said service he is entitled under that act to seventy-five cents per day, then he should recover $ 66; otherwise he should recover nothing. It is contended by appellee that this act of the Legislature is unconstitutional, and on that account the appellant is not entitled to seventy-five cents per day, as provided for in this act. The lower court declared as a matter of law that said act of the Legislature is unconstitutional and void, and that therefore the appellant was not entitled to recover, and rendered judgment against him for costs. And from that judgment an appeal is prayed to this court.

Act No. 136 of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas of 1907, is as follows:

"Section 1. That section 4402 of Kirby's Digest be amended to read as follows:

"Section 4402. Whenever any person committed to jail upon any criminal process, under the laws of this State, shall declare, on oath, that he is unable to buy or procure necessary food, the sheriff or jailer shall provide such prisoner the food necessary for his support, for which he shall be allowed the sum of seventy-five cents per day, and if from the inclemency of the season, sickness of the prisoner or other cause, the sheriff or jailer is of the opinion that fuel or additional clothing is necessary for such prisoner, he shall furnish same, for which he shall be allowed a reasonable compensation.

"Section 2. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed, and this act take effect and be in force from and after its passage."

By section 46 of article 7 of the Constitution it is provided that: "The qualified electors of each county shall elect a sheriff, who shall be ex-officio collector of taxes unless otherwise provided by law."

And by section 4 of article 16 of the Constitution it is provided: "The General Assembly shall fix the salaries and fees of all officers in the State, and no greater salary or fee than that fixed by law shall be paid to any officer, employee or other person, or at any rate other than par value; and the number and salaries of the clerks and employees of the different departments of the State shall be fixed by law."

Now, the Constitution does not define the duties of the office of sheriff. That is left entirely to the Legislature to fix and determine; and it is also left to the Legislature to fix the amount of the compensation that shall be paid for services required of such officer. It is well settled in the United States that, unless the Constitution otherwise expressly provides, the Legislature has the power to define the duties of an officer and to increase or vary those duties. Throop on Public Officers, § 19.

There is no provision in our Constitution that inhibits the Legislature from adding to or varying the duties of the office of sheriff. The office of sheriff, in this regard, is similar to the office of clerk. In the case of State v. McDiarmid, 27 Ark. 176, this court said: "The office of clerk as fixed by the Constitution is an office which the Legislature cannot absolutely abolish; but the duties to be performed and the fees to be paid is a thing wholly within the control of the Legislature." And this applies equally to the office of sheriff under our present Constitution. The Legislature, unless restricted by the Constitution, has full and plenary powers to adopt such policies and prescribe the duties which it demands of officers in carrying out such policies which it deems best for the peace and welfare of the people. Straub v. Gordon, 27 Ark. 625; Carson v. St. Francis Levee District, 59 Ark. 513.

Aside from the restriction of the State or Federal constitutions the Legislature is unfettered in the exercise of legislative power. The question as to whether the enactment is wise or expedient belongs exclusively for the General Assembly to determine. State v. Martin, 60 Ark. 343, 30 S.W. 421.

"The Constitution regards the county courts as political and corporate bodies that are to be controlled and regulated in their discretion by the acts of the General Assembly, and not as independent of or superior to it. As political and corporate bodies, they are required to conform their action to the rule of the Legislature, and in the exercise of their jurisdiction to proceed in the mode and manner prescribed by law. County of Pulaski v. Irvin, 4 Ark. 473; Hudson v. Jefferson County Court, 28 Ark. 359.

Now the Legislature has prescribed the following duties to be...