State ex rel. Nejdl v. Bowman

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Martin, J.
• Citation: State ex rel. Nejdl v. Bowman, 199 Ind. 436, 157 N.E. 723 (Ind. 1927)
• Decision Date: 05 August 1927
• Docket Number: 25,353
• Parties: State of Indiana, ex rel. Nejdl v. Bowman, Auditor of State

157 N.E. 723

199 Ind. 436

State of Indiana, ex rel. Nejdl v. Bowman, Auditor of State

No. 25,353

Supreme Court of Indiana

August 5, 1927

Original Opinion of April 19, 1927, Reported at: 199 Ind 436.

OPINION

Martin, J.

Counsel for appellee, in his brief on petition for a rehearing, says "The judgment of reversal exists solely because Martin, J., erroneously resolved his doubt in favor of the validity of the act" . . . "The rule applied by Martin, J., is proper when there is an attempt to invoke the Constitution as against a public act enacted in the public interest, but it cannot properly apply where the public invokes the Constitution against such an act as the act of 1927 which serves only the private interests of public servants at the expense of the public treasury. Every rule has its exceptions and the instant case furnishes the exception."

The authorities cited to support this statement hold that "considerations of expediency and of sound public policy may be of determining influence in case of doubt as to the real meaning of a constitutional provision." 12 C. J. 703.

Appellee's argument cannot prevail. We know of no public policy that has been violated by the act of 1927 here involved. Appellee regardless of the fact that the reasonableness of the salary of $ 10 per day fixed by the legislature was not in issue and was not considered by the court, and regardless of the statement in his brief that "the reasonableness of the amount of compensation which the legislature may fix for its members can never be a question for this court," devotes a large portion of his brief to numerous and repeated declarations of the following tenor: "the great public interest in a protected treasury is now being sacrificed in favor of the strictly personal interests of public officials . . . the excess in the provision of $ 10 per day . . . is hostile to the public interest and...