State v. Burris

• Decision Date: 22 July 1901
• Citation: 20 Del. 3,49 A. 930
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: THE STATE OF DELAWARE, upon the relation of BERNARD J. MCVEY, v. MARTIN B. BURRIS, State Treasurer

49 A. 930

20 Del. 3

THE STATE OF DELAWARE, upon the relation of BERNARD J. MCVEY, v. MARTIN B. BURRIS, State Treasurer

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

July 22, 1901

Court in Banc.

Questions of law arising on a case stated in MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS (No 166, May Term, 1901), directed by the Superior Court for New Castle County, to be heard by the Court in banc.

John Biggs for the relator.

Herbert H. Ward and Robert H. Richards for the respondent.

LORE C. J., and SPRUANCE, GRUBB, PENNEWILL and BOYCE, Associate Judges, sitting.

OPINION

LORE, C. J.

This is an application for a writ of peremptory mandamus to compel Martin B. Burris, State treasurer of the State of Delaware the respondent, to pay to Bernard J. McVey, the relator, the sum of $ 100; being, as he alleges, the amount due him for salary as State detective for the month ending April 1, 1901. The facts were agreed upon in a case stated, and the question of law raised therein, on joint application of the parties was ordered by the Court to be heard by the Court in banc. By the case stated it appears that the relator had been regularly appointed and was in the due exercise of his office as a State detective on the 12th day of March, 1901, by appointment for a term of four years, under the provisions of Chapter 64, 21 Laws Delaware; that his term of office had not then expired. By act of the General Assemby, approved March 12, 1901, said chapter 64 was "repealed and made null and void." Thereby the office of State detective was abolished. By act of the General Assembly, approved March 15, 1901, the office of State detective was re-established, but the relator was not reappointed under the last named act. The relator claims that the repealing act of March 12, 1901, is void, under Article 15, § 4, Constitution, 1897, which reads: "No law shall extend the term of any public officer, nor diminish his salary or emoluments after his election or appointment." He bases this contention on two grounds: (1) That the abolishment of his office took away his salary for the residue of his term and thereby diminished his salary; (2) that the abolishment of the office of State detective by act of March 12, 1901, and the re-establishment of the same by act of March 15, 1901, were only an indirect method of diminishing the salary of the relator, and not a bona fide attempt to dispense with the office. We will deal with the latter point first. There is no evidence in this case that there was any lack of bona fides on the part of the Legislature in passing these acts. The presumption of law is in favor of good faith. Even if there was a lack of bona fides on the part of the members of the Legislature, what right would this Court have to pass upon that subject, if what the Legislature did was within its power? Whether it acted in good faith and for the best interests of the public is entirely between the members and their constituents, so long as they confine themselves within the limits of their authority. It is no function of this Court to pass upon the motives of the Legislature in the discharge of their duty. The Legislature of each State represents the sovereignty of the people,...