13 Mich. 233 | Mich. | 1865
By the Laws of 1863, p. 332,. the Common Council of Detroit were empowered to appoint a clerk to the Police Court, and to prescribe his salary, which was made payable out of the County Treasury, in the same manner with that of the Police Justice — that is, to be allowed, raised and paid by the Board of Auditors as other county charges. The County Auditors refuse to pay the relator’s salary, (fixed by the Council at $1,000,) on the ground that no one Can fix its amount, under the constitution, but themselves. The clause of the constitution relied on for this interpretation is Article 10, Section 10, which declares that “the Board of Supervisors, or, in the County of Wayne, the Board of County Auditors, shall have the exclusive power to prescribe and fix the compensation for all services rendered for, and to adjust all claims against, their respective counties, and the sum so fixed or defined shall be subject to no appeal.”
The question presented is, whether the services rendered by this clerk are “ services rendered for Wayne County,” within the meaning of this clause.
The office of the Police Court is to perform, within the City of Detroit, the duties performed by Justices of the Peace in townships, in the examination and trial of offenders against the criminal laws of the State, the Police Justice and the clerk sharing between them the duties elsewhere performed by Justices alone. They are in no sense county officers; they are rather city officials, so far as place is concerned. Their duties relate entirely
Upon an examination of our State polity, before and since the adoption of the new constitution, it will be found that many charges have been laid on counties, as ■such, where no benefit accrued to them in their corporate capacity, but where it was, doubtless, deemed a fair way of apportioning the public expenses. It would be ■difficult to perceive what advantage a county derives from the civil proceedings between parties in the Courts •of Justice, or why, if there be any advantage, the services of the Judge, as well as of jurors and witnesses, ’ should not be deemed services rendered for the counties where they respectively sit. It is an advantage to have justice accessible to all, and to have evil-doers punished, but acts which do not affect the interests and security of the public at large have not usually been classed as ■crimes, (although the distinctions are somewhat arbitrary,) and the advantages in all these cases result to the community generally. We feel very sensibly the difficulty of ■classifying the services rendered to counties, as contra-distinguished from those which, although charged on them, are not rendered for their peculiar benefit; but the practical construction has, from the beginning, made .judicial proceedings an exception, or, rather, regarded them as not coming' within the former class. The fees
There aré, on the other hand, many services rendered by county officers, and perhaps by some others, which have a direct bearing on county interests. Those services rendered by Clerks and others in keeping records, and attending meetings, and drawing and certifying papers relating to county business, are of this character. Such are also many, and perhaps most, services of the County Treasurer, Other cases will readily suggest themselves. The practical construction which has fixed or limited
Where the subject is not within the exclusive control •of the county officers, there is no constitutional provision which prevents the Legislature from placing the matter under the supervision of municipal bodies, as they have done in the present instance.
We think this a proper case for a mandamus. No costs, however, will be allowed, as the defence is in good faith, and the question a new and important one.