Hamilton v. St. Louis Cnty. Court

• Decision Date: 31 October 1851
• Parties: HAMILTON AND TREAT, JUDGES, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY COURT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

15 Mo. 3

HAMILTON AND TREAT, JUDGES,

v.ST. LOUIS COUNTY COURT.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1851.

1. The following is an account presented by Alexander Hamilton, judge of the Circuit Court, to the County of St. Louis for payment:

“The County of St. Louis,

To Alexander Hamilton, Dr.

For amount of compensation allowed him out of the county treasury of St. Louis county for his services as judge of the 9th judicial circuit, Mo., from the 1st day of August, A. D. 1851, to November 2nd, 1851, pursuant to the act of the General Assembly, entitled ‘An act to increase the salaries of Judges in St. Louis county,’ approved March 3rd, 1851. No fees having been collected by him during the period aforesaid, under the former compensation acts, as may appear by the certificates of the clerk of the said court and the sheriff of the said county. $500 00. Received payment.”

2. Order of the County Court.

State of Missouri, County of St. Louis, ss In the St. Louis County Court, November Term, 1851, Wednesday, November the 19th, 1851.

“The Honorable Alexander Hamilton presents to the County Court for payment, an account against the county of St. Louis, for the sum of $500 00, alleged amount of compensation allowed him out of the county treasury for services as judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county from the 1st day of August, 1851, to the 2nd day of November, 1851, pursuant to an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, entitled ‘An act to increase the salaries of Judges in St. Louis county,’ approved March 3rd, 1851. Whereupon the court being of the opinion that the act aforesaid is inoperative and void, it is ordered that payment of said account be refused.”

Alexander Hamilton, judge of the eighth judicial circuit of said State, represents that he has been judge of the said court for the year last past, and to the present time and now is said judge; that by virtue of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, entitled “An act to increase the salaries of the Judges in St. Louis county,” approved March 3rd, 1851, the County Court of St. Louis county was authorized and required to pay to him, quarter-yearly, a sum sufficient to make his annual salary not less than three thousand dollars; that by virtue of said act there was due to your petitioner on the second day of November, A. D., 1851, the sum of $500 00 from said county, for which he made out his account and demanded said sum from said County Court, on the 19th day of said November, and that the said County Court refused to pay the same, or any part thereof, as will appear from the copy of said account and the order of said County Court, refusing to allow the same, or to order the same to be paid, a certified copy of which proceedings of said County Court is hereto annexed. Whereupon your petitioner prays that a mandamus may issue from his honorable court, directed to said County Court, commanding said County Court to allow said account and cause the same to be paid, or to show cause why said court has not so done, &c.

The writ of mandamus having issued as above prayed for, the County Court made the following answer and return, to-wit:

State of Missouri, County of St. Louis, ss. In the St. Louis County Court, November 21st, 1851.

For answer and return to the writ of mandamus, issued at the instance of Alexander Hamilton, Esq., Judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court, bearing date the 20th day of November, 1851 and served upon the County Court on this day, commanding this court to allow and cause to be paid out of the treasury of St. Louis county, a certain account of the said Alexander Hamilton, rendered to this court against the county of St. Louis, for the sum of five hundred dollars, alleged to be due to the said Alexander Hamilton, from the county of St. Louis, according to an act of the General Assembly of Missouri, approved March 3rd, 1851, entitled, “An act to increase the salaries of the Judges in St. Louis county,” or show cause why said account was not allowed and paid. The court say: “This court refused to cause the said account of the said Alexander Hamilton to be allowed and paid out of the county treasury, and for so doing, assign the following reasons. 1. It is not true (in the opinion of this court) that, by the act of the General Assembly above referred to, this court was authorized and required to pay to the said Alexander Hamilton, quarter-yearly, a sum sufficient to make his annual salary three thousand dollars; nor was the sum of five hundred dollars, nor any other determinate sum due to the said Alexander Hamilton, by the St. Louis County Court by virtue of that act, and the matters suggested in said writ on the 2nd day of November, 1851. 2. If the said act be of any force and validity, (which this court denies) it only confers upon this County Court, a discretion to increase the salary of the said Alexander Hamilton, which it has not exercised nor been moved to exercise. 3. But this court is of opinion that the act of Assembly referred to, is of no binding force whatever, but that it is in violation of common right, and of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, and therefore inoperative and void. 4. All of which is ordered to be certified to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, now sitting at St. Louis, Missouri.

SPALDING, for Relators.

I. A mandamus is the proper remedy: 3 Mo. R. 140, County of Boone v. Todd; 5 Mo. R. 268, St. Louis County Court v. Ruland.

II. The act for the payment of the judges of Circuit Court, Common Pleas, and Criminal Court of St. Louis county, passed March, 1851, page 281 of acts of last session, leaves no discretion to the County Court, when the account is presented by the Judges; they are bound to admit and allow it, and order it to be paid. The words are, “authorized and required,” &c. Dwarris on Stat. 7 Law Lib., p. 736, as to consequences of act throwing light or meaning, &c. ibid. 790-1, real intent, if certain, “will always prevail over the literal sense of terms,” pp. 693-4; in the exposition of a statute the leading clue to the construction is the intention of the legislator, &c., pp. 725-6, “no statute shall be interpreted so as to be inconvenient and against reason.”

III. The act is constitutional. 1. Our State Constitution confers ““legislative power” upon the General Assembly, and this comprehends all legislative power which can be conferred, with such limitations as are contained in the instrument itself. Now this Constitution is the act of the sovereign people, it is their power of attorney to their servants and agents, for the government of the State. There is no restriction upon the power to form counties, except one, that is, that no county shall contain less than four hundred square miles; nor upon the power to subdivide the State into convenient districts for the purposes of the details of government. Nor is there any limitation on the power to tax, except these, to-wit: “That all property subject to taxation in this State, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, and that no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States, nor shall lands belonging to persons residing out of the limits of this State, ever be taxed higher than the lands belonging to persons residing within this State.” Now, there being no limit to the powers to subdivide into districts, and to tax, there can be nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Legislature from imposing on any one of the counties or districts, such boundaries as they choose. It is matter of discretion and policy with the Legislature, and accordingly they have assessed upon different counties the expenses of administering justice, more or less, as will be seen by the following references: Rev. Code 1845, p. 168, §§ 67-8, that fuel, stationery, and other things necessary for courts in this county shall be furnished by sheriff, and the County Court shall pay it out of the county treasury: ibid., p. 178, § 16, that judge of Probate be allowed all necessary expenses, &c., to be paid out of county treasury; ibid., p. 131, §§ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, county to pay costs in certain criminal cases, where there is conviction and the offender unable to pay, &c. ibid., 164, § 12, judges of County Court to be paid out of county treasury. Acts of 1849, p. 38, § 4, provides for the payment of $100, annually, to each Judge of the Supreme Court out of the county treasury of St. Louis county; 10 Mo. R. 591. It is in the power of the State Legislature, unless restrained by some provision in the Constitution, to prohibit or restrict the exercise of any trade or business within this State. No such prohibitory clause is contained in the Constitution of this State: 12 Mo. R. 268; 13 Mo. R. 243; tax on lawyers, as a class, not unconstitutional. 2. They have assessed, upon individuals, the expenses, in part, of the administration of justice. Those that litigate have to pay juries, for a fee is taxed, and is advanced by all that bring suits: 13 Mo. R. 243. And more than this, the same persons are taxed to pay the judges' salaries: Rev. Code 1845, p. 174, § 18. The Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis is to receive fees, to be taxed in suits, &c. Acts of 1851, p. 206, § 24, Judge of Platte County Common Pleas to receive fees as compensation. Ibid., p. 206, § 3, Judge of Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas receives his compensation in fees. Now, these fees are assessments on individuals, designated by the result of the suits. What right has the State to enact that those unfortunate individuals shall pay a part of the judges' salaries? And our circuit judge, also, receives fees taxed and collected on every execution which makes part of his compensation: p. 80, acts of 1840-41. 3. The inequality is no objection, for there will be inequalities, arithmetically, even in attempting to impose the burdens equally. But there is no clause of the Constitution that enjoins equality. And the Legislature have power, unless...