Carver v. City of Charleston

• Decision Date: 28 March 1933
• Docket Number: 7463,7464.
• Citation: 169 S.E. 521,113 W.Va. 518
• Parties: CARVER v. CITY OF CHARLESTON et al. MEDLEY v. SAME.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

169 S.E. 521

113 W.Va. 518

CARVER v. CITY OF CHARLESTON et al.

MEDLEY v. SAME.

Nos. 7463, 7464.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

March 28, 1933

Submitted January 25, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

One object of Governor's proclamation calling special legislative session held reduction of government costs, hence statute reducing public employees' wages was justified (Acts 1932 [Ex. Sess.] c. 20; Const. art. 7, § 7).

The proclamation of the Governor calling the Legislature into special session in 1932 reveals as one of its objects the reduction of government costs, authorizing the enactment of legislation reducing the salaries or wages of public employees, as well as the salaries of public officials specifically authorized therein.

Original mandamus proceedings by E. P. Carver and by W. L. Medley against the City of Charleston and others.

Mandamus denied.

Charles Ritchie and Philip H. Hill, both of Charleston, for respondents.

LITZ, Judge.

Each of the relators, E. P. Carver and W. L. Medley, by separate petitions, seek a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, city of Charleston, a municipal corporation, R P. Devan, mayor, H. C. Walker, manager, Emmett Silman auditor, and J. D. Price, treasurer, thereof, to pay each of them a semimonthly installment of his salary as municipal court clerk and street commissioner, respectively, of said municipality.

The controversy involves the validity of an act of the 1932 Special Session of the Legislature, c. 20, known as Senate Bill No. 47, reducing the salaries or wages of all public officials and employees in excess of $1,200 and not more than $2,000, 10 per centum; in excess of $2,000 and not more than $3,000, 15 per centum; and in excess of $3,000, 20 per centum.

The act is assailed on the ground that it is not within the proclamation of the Governor calling the Legislature into special session, and therefore violates section 7, article 7 of the state Constitution, limiting the action of the Legislature, in special session, to the "business *** stated in the proclamation by which it was called together."

"The revision of salaries paid all public officials now fixed or authorized by general or special statute" is the third item stated in the original proclamation. After the assembling of the Legislature, the Governor undertook to "broaden" this item of his call by including the revision of compensation paid all public agents and employees and the compensation received by every other person from public funds. The relator, Carver, being a public official whose office is created and salary authorized by section 5 of the municipal charter (a "special statute"), the act in so far as it affects him is within the letter of the original call. Medley, however, is a mere employee whose position is not provided for in the charter. Assuming that the proclamation could not have been legally amended after the meeting of the Legislature, does it in its original form authorize legislation reducing salaries of public employees? The original call contains eleven items of business as follows:

"First An enabling statute to authorize the receivers of closed banks to negotiate loans from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or other source for distribution among the creditors and stockholders of said banks.

"Second: The amendment of section 4, article 10, chapter 11 of the Official Code, relating to the time of publication of delinquent tax lists and the time of making sale by the sheriff of delinquent lands, and an amendment of section 30, article 10, chapter 11 of said Code, extending the time of forfeiture of the 1929

...