95 Pa. Super. 423 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1928
Argued October 22, 1928.
The question is what is the salary of a county commissioner in Clearfield County. It has more than 100,000 inhabitants and less than 150,000, and is therefore *425
in the fifth class (July 10, 1919, P.L. 887). The applicable statute is the Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 403, section 1, fixing the salary at $4,000 a year, and section 2 repealing inconsistent legislation, — "words of express repeal" as was said in Com. v. Weir,
Public officers are entitled only to such compensation as is clearly authorized by legislation: Marquette v. Berks Co.,
Under the Act of June 4, 1879, P.L. 78, the county became a poor district "for the purpose of furnishing relief to the poor, destitute and paupers, giving them employment, and carrying out the provisions of this act ......"; the duty of administering the affairs of this poor district was imposed on and has since been performed by the county commissioners, who, originally, were entitled by section 17 "to charge in their *426
accounts as compensation the same rate per day for time necessarily employed about the business [of administering the poor district] that they are entitled to receive as county commissioners." See generally section 200 of the Act of May 14, 1925, P.L. 762, 764; Jenks Poor District v. Sheffield District,
In 1915, P.L. 936, the salaries were again increased and a higher salary was provided "where the commissioners are directors of the poor," than if they did not perform that service. The same distinction was made when salaries were increased in 1917, P.L. 570, and again in 1923, P.L. 1054, supra.
Salaries of directors of the poor (not also county *427 commissioners) are fixed by the Act of 1907, P.L. 487, entitled "An Act fixing the salaries and providing for the expenses of the directors of the poor in the several counties of this Commonwealth;" it provides that it "shall not affect counties in which county commissioners perform the duties of poor directors." See also section 400 of the General Poor Relief Act of 1925, P.L. 762, 770, and the amendment of April 7, 1927, P.L. 148.
Coming now to section 11 of the Act of 1923, supra, appellants contend that the portion of the section here italicized was not repealed by the repealing clause in the Act of 1927: "In such counties, the annual salaries of the following county officers shall be as follows: ...... of the county commissioners, $2,500 each, and where such countycommissioners are also directors of the poor, then $3,500each." This Act of 1923 was entitled "an act relating to certain county officers in counties of the fifth class; providing for their salaries ......, placing certain duties on the county commissioners......." The controller contends that the Act of 1927 fixing the salary at $4,000 and repealing inconsistent legislation takes the place of all of section 11 just quoted. Appellants' counsel frankly states in his brief that the "plaintiffs would have the act [of 1923] interpreted [and continued in effect after 1927] as if it read `and where such county commissioners are also directors of the poor, then $1,000 additional as directors of the poor.'" Having so rewritten the statute, his argument continues that the Act of 1927 substitutes for the commissioners salary of $2,500 the sum of $4,000, but leaves effective authority to pay $1,000 additional to county commissioners who administer the poor district. This argument is supported, he contends, by the fact that the Act of 1879 makes county commissioners ex-officio poor district officers (Melvin v. Summerville, supra; Tucker's Appeal,
It is not disputed that, within constitutional limits, the legislature may impose on county commissioners such duties as it wishes performed and may fix the salary: Com. v. McCombs,
If, as stated in appellants' brief, there are some counties of the fifth class in which separate officers administer the affairs of the poor district, whose county commissioners (for less work) receive under the Act of 1927 the same salary as the commissioners of Clearfield County receive, it is an inequality that is within the control of the legislature (poor districts not being subject to the prohibition against local or special legislation: Jenks District v. Sheffield District, supra).
Section 11 of the Act of 1923, establishing the salaries of county commissioners for all services rendered, was repealed by the Act of 1927 fixing the salary at $4,000 a year.
Judgment affirmed at the costs of appellants.