*1 relevant, reason was entire constituted a of the part transaction. assigned because the was
Error plaintiff permitted a testify, to over defendant’s conver- objection, sation which she with Miss Mat- alleges she had a thews, an of the employee Carolina South Public Service “I Company. testified: wanted get plaintiff somebody for it, else’s word reason he simple (Johnson) had said all the were gas company selling employees it; so called I I after had up gas company, bought stock, I them wanted to ask about the they I told stock were defendant selling.” said when she called the She number, telephone answered company’s Miss Matthews the telephone and reassured her with to the reference security investment, of the and told “He you her: told (Johnson) because can turn right, bit you every time any get it.” money you paid We see no merit inadmissible, If it is exception. not certainly The record of a prejudicial. is full testimony similar character.
We are of the that the trial committed opinion Judge no error nonsuit, in his refusal to direct a grant verdict, or a new grant trial.
Judgment affirmed. and Messrs. Mr. Ci-iiee Bon- Stabrer Justice Justices ham concur. Baker on account of Mr. did participate Carter Justice illness. BEATTIE, GENERAL,
PLOWDEN v. COMPTROLLER ET AL. E.,
(193 651) *3 Daniel, General, Ivey Attorney Messrs. John J. M. Gen- Hough, Attorneys M. J. Assistant Humphrey eral, for cite: appellants, cites: DuRant, respondent,
Mr. Charlton *4 25, October 1937. of Court
The the delivered Mr. by was opinion Justice Baker. the auditor for for County was Clarendon
Respondent 1934, the 1931, 1932, by 1933 and was paid and years salary two-thirds of his of its Carolina as State South 1934, $1,- 1932, 1933, the sums of and for years $1,129.11, $1,091.92, 283.10, respectively. and as these for Respondent salary years, his alleges State, fixed of this 2700 of general law by of of $2,250.00 was and as two-thirds 1932, annually, Code he State, by is due balance is payable by this salary 1932, 1933, of for for $216.90 $370.89 1934, for a total of or $408.08 $995.87.
He action in commenced against appellants mandamus the Court Common Pleas for County, but Richland consent the by action transferred to was the Richland Court, in decree of that County Court resulting ordering that the Beattie, A. Comptroller as General appellant J. Carolina, issue his or South do warrant war- rants favor of in above-stated amounts respondent State, as back claimed due salary as appellant, Miller, Eustace P. Treasurer of the State of Carolina, do said warrants pay South upon presentation. We need not concern ourselves with the local bills supply of Clarendon wherein County was reduce attempted of the auditor of that salary county, since similar lo- cal have been unconstitutional, Acts declared null and void al., in the 249, case et Salley McCoy C., v. S. E., 196. fact over which was only question there any been
issue decided having against appellants, there to sustain trial being testimony some Judge, Also, such will not be finding disturbed. exception trial been Judge, finding having argued, to be abandoned. presumed
The cardinal appeal, and questions only raised ones are: was the argued What appellants, (1) auditor 1932, of Clarendon County years 1934, in which is included the Does question: the annual have force supersede equal awith And is so much statute? (2) permanent ap- at (37 Large, St. propriation 1567), p. undertakes to decrease the auditors unconstitutional? A careful year reading 8, 1933, (Act Acts for May *5 1934, 796, 16, Act 38 at March 38 Large, St. p. St. at not that auditors p. does disclose Large, 1865) county of sum a lump referred except them.
with which pay of (Act 1929), 2700 of Code of Under Section County of Clarendon annual of the auditor salary which, $1,500.00, of two-thirds $2,250.00, payable 9, (Act May The for State appropriation State. of 446, 1931, 37 at reduced the Large, 56) pay § St. p. (the in 1930 auditors from the scale State’s paid county cent. $1,800.00, on $1,301.00 per salaries portion), 1577, 1932, for at pro- page State of audi- that salary vides portion State’s from the 1931 on salaries shall reduced basis of tors cent.; 1625, in $1,201.00 $1,500.00, and on 12 per page 57, increases decreases of any or provided Section over or under amounts in 1931 shall become paid salaries in- 1, effective 1932. This was April apparently provision avoid serted so as to conflict with any possible of 1932. This will 3212 of the Code last-mentioned section be discussed later.
n A calculation discloses simple portion State’s the auditor of Clarendon for the salary County $1,410.00. In year was year State’s por- of the auditor’s for tion Clarendon salary County and March was one-fourth January, February, months $1,410.00, or For the balance the year $352.50. 1932, if the had been decreased, salary would State been due auditor of Clarendon County $1,057.00; have 1, 1932, but the after been April reduced having aforesaid, 1932, 12 cent., Act for per the appropriation This $1,057.50, was due him not but $930.60. February, for the months of January, added to $352.50 March, 1932, made due by the portion $1,283.10 sum amount for (the paid), equal has if the Act of supersedes con- of time covered a permanent force with period statute. tinuing
On account of on this its and influence persuasiveness here we set forth 1 of opinion, Subdivision Section of the Code 1932: Authorisation. —The Treasurer is au-
“(1) State hereby thorized, and directed to the empowered salaries and pay officers, in lieu of allowance salaries of expense State treasurers the auditors and county and for employees February, of January, months March of each year, and the same be a warrant paid upon issued the by Comp- troller the Comptroller General and General is re- hereby issue such warrants. The salaries quired all payment officers, of State auditors em- county treasurers and made shall be upon basis of year ployees preceding as Act, set forth in except constitutional appropriation officers shall the rate who be at in the statutes paid specified for the term for which have been elected.” they
It will be noted that was foregoing recognized officers, the salaries of ex- by Legislature constitutional officers, and treas- auditors cept officers, urers, who are not constitutional would sub- Act; annually ject change so that these officers would be discommoded while Act, of the yearly awaiting passage Sec- tion on payment of salaries based provided decreased, If or year. increased preceding additions deductions could be made for necessary nine months of as so to conform to remaining year The section under discussion was salary appropriated. Act 838 of the Acts of formerly 1397, after p. 2700 of the in- Code, all
passage repealed Acts, consistent criterion adopted payment of salaries which to first three governed months the year, the amount for officers appropriated year. preceding in the or decrease no increase
When Act for any officer is made in statute con- then the year, general permanent given trols. C., 443, Jones, case Brooks v.
In principle, *7 under E., 946, on fours with the discussion phase 61 is all S. There, salary a statute fixed the permanent in case. of this at annum. per the clerk Court $800.00 $1,000.00, raised to Act for 1908 the salary appropriation General to his when the refused issue Comptroller increase, action warrant on Treasurer for the an the State in mandamus was instituted. the decree
We from of the Circuit quote Judge mandamus, 444 445 at pages South granting Carolina which decree as Reports, adopted was Court, so of the in far opinion unanimously adopted concerned, as the law as the con- shown principle was Mr. Chief (afterwards curring opinion Justice Jones C., E., at 449 61 of 80 at 947 of Justice), S. S. page page in Mr. concurred Woods. Justice From main opinion: “ act, 'An in though duration appropriation generally as force effect a stat equal has temporary, permanent for the time being. If ute to such approved subsequently conflict, act, there is irreconcilable the lat permanent ter time suspended during- the Act is is Mitchell, S., 151, 109 Ct., force. U. v. U. 27 (3 S. 146 S. Ed., Treas., C., Buchanan v. 68 887); L. (411) S. 47 415, E., 683. S. “ increase 'If an act or diminish appears the former act, salary salary permanent provided violated), there no constitutional (if prohibition controls the intention Legis it is that was apparent provided question “The depends lature to make whole change. stat on the intention expressed (appropriation) S., S., U. Mitchell, v. 150 supra; U. U. Belknap utes.” v.S. 237 Ct., 183, Ed, 1191]; Buchanan v. State S. L. [14 ” Treas., supra.’ From concurring opinion:
“It competent ap means Legislature, by act, increase lessen propriation an officer (where there no constitutional inhibition), provided intent to do so may fairly inferred the language S. Ct., of the S., S., statute. v. U. 150 U. Belknap 588 [14 ; 183, Ed., cases L. U. citing S. v. including 1191] S., 1185, 118 U. Langston, Ct, Ed., 164]; S. L. [6 Buchanan v. Treasurer, 68 C., [411] S. E., 683. such manifest, When intention clearly statute is considered be in conflict with a stat previous ute such and to so as fixing operate suspend general statute previous during currency appro priation statute.”
See, also, C., the case of Rhame, State v. 92 S. *8 883, 461, on 462, E., Cas., 75 pages 881, S. Ann. 1914-B, 519, it wherein is stated: “Public officers are for benefit created the commonwealth, of incum- bents have no contract in them, property un- rights and, less Constitution, otherwise by provided they subject entirely to legislative Hence, control. subject to Constitution, the General may fix the Assembly term, pro- removal, vide for office, abolish the term, reduce the in control the every respect existence, emoluments, powers, and tenure of public officers.”
Section 2700 of Code amended in 1933 by was 230, 17, No. at April Large, p. St. approved (38 but for auditor of Clarendon 290), County was not affected. now to the if question ap-
We come so much of Act for 1932 of au- reduces propriation as is unconstitutional as violative of Article 3, ditors 17, 1895, of as of the Constitution which follows: reads Act or force shall resolution of law re- “Every having in the that shall be subject, expressed
late but one title.” at (37 Act for 1932 St.
The title of “An Act to Make Appro- as follows: reads Large, p. 1567) Gov- to Meet Ordinary Expenses priations 1932, 1, Year January ernment for the Fiscal Beginning and Regulate Ex- Defray to Provide a Tax Same Thereof; Authorize the Purchase Certain To penditure Salary To Reduce the Chesterfield County; Obligations 5480-81 for Teachers Provided Sections Schedule II, Laws, 1932; the Rate Vol. To Prescribe Code Declare Cer- Certain Highway Obligations Interest on Preferen- Highway tain Department Obligations Funds Collateral for Public Trust tial Securing and/or Payment *9 500, C., E., 516; 122 128 122 v. Query, S. S. Santee Mills C., 202; C., 158, E., 115 S. v. 136 Powell Hargrove, S. S. 134 345, E., 380. S. enactment of to declare a solemn
It a matter grave a branch of the government, co-ordinate Legislature, conclusions invalid, in its deliberation and and Court the un- the well-settled principle should guided by be rea- must be beyond an Act shown constitutionality 239 C., 152 Moorer, sonable doubt. ex rel. Richards v. S. State 455, 269; E., 150 v. South Carolina Tax Com Wingfield S. C., 116,
mission, 846; 147 144 cited E., cases S. S. in the preceding paragraph.
“It that the title should an necessary be index of the statute.” contents v. Greenville Briggs County, C., 288, E., 137 135 153, 163, and S. with S. quoted ap in Moorer, v. State proval supra.
“The mandate of Constitution is with if complied title states general subject legislation and in the body of the act provisions germane thereto as to accomplish object in the means title.” Ver- expressed 117, Muller, E., C., ner 654, 655, v. 89 S. S. and citing 427; Connor v. Co., C., S. Railroad State v. O’Day, 448, C., E., S. 607. “ * * * The restriction subject of requiring be in expressed its title should be con- reasonably strued, substance considering form, rather than to require in title of the expression general object but not incidents, or means details object effecting sought subject and to include the not the of the Act purpose and the reasons which about brought enactment of it Legislature.” Cyc., 1018-1020.
For further in authority with the keeping above prin- law, reference ciples be had may the cases and general law cited quoted v. Moorer, supra, Sumter, McKiever v. both supra; opinions of the Court by Mr. In (now Chief Justice). Stabler view Justice these it others, would a work opinions, superero- gation to herein cite additional authorities. mind, it said
With the can foregoing principles that the portion reducing the salaries of auditors and for that treasurers cent, after unconstitutional? year per April be, title “An Act to Make declares Appropria- tions Meet the Govern- Expenses Ordinary *10 1, 1932, to Fiscal January
merit for the Year Beginning the Tax the and Regulate to Ex- Provide a Same Defray Thereof.” penditure Act of the and as amended by
While Section of the salary is continuing auditors, been to the county appro- it has custom yet same, sum which to with annually pay lump priate the dis- no on matter fact therefore has under bearing common that the two- is State knowledge pays cussion. It that auditors, they thirds of officers. year appro- therefore Each State gmri-state officers, with the Act deals its although salaries priation a constitutional officer cannot be changed officer’s such term office. during is the one of legis- “big piece” lation the time of at each to occupy Legislature General and is Assembly, probably session of bill; is, legis- most number of greatest studied by Assembly. lators General composing membership section intended then, if this Constitution was So abuse of guard through against possible slipping title under the of a to such guise legis- legislation foreign far as the needed in so lation, it But, not the be salaries concerned. State paid a tax to defray a matter to providing considered same, much as other These sal- just appropriations? aries, forty-six when there are auditors and especially treasurers, located in the various com- forty-six counties State, amount, no aggregate inconsiderable posing the payment into account must be taken providing the ordinary expenses salaries are a thereof. These part therefore, would, appear It government. defrayed a salary or decrease of increase Act to make appropria- title of “An to the State is germane Govern- the ordinary expenses tions meet ” * * * ment, defray a tax to and “to provide *11 ** At as to least there is reasonable same a doubt Act, of the under the of this the law unconstitutionality State, must favor con- this be resolved in of the Act’s doubt it in another the stitutionality. violation Expressing way, must of the constitutional inhibition be and unmis- plain 26 Am. & Eng. takable. of 574. (2d Ed.), See Enc. Law. course, These of with force principles, apply equal to the 1933 1934. Acts of How- appropriation ever, is there a material difference between that of the part claim which arises respondent’s under ap- the Act of 1932 propriation which under part arises the of Acts 1933 and Under appropriation 1934. the ap- Act the propriation of respondent’s right to prose- cute the cause present founded the upon (1) continuing for his made appropriation salary by Sections 2700 3212 the Code, subject of (2) to the reduction specified cent, of made the per by of 1932. appropriation direction of the specific statute as to the amount the of must decrease be taken salary to override any inadequacy in the words, in made the same In appropriation Act. other the 1932 specifically amends Section the (we of Code the ignoring amendment of in Section since amendment does af- fect the auditor of Clarendon County) by reducing of respondent cent., by amended, as thus per made continuing appropriation by remains in under that, effect. So this Act (1932), respondent obtains remedy his upon principle of payment State, of officer of which for in provided continuing legislative enforced appropriation, may by mandamus.
A different situation is under presented appropria- of no tion Acts 1933 and 1934. reference sal- While to the made the narrative ary portions auditors is Acts, these a sum by Legislature more, money cannot auditors, without pay county less effect than a declaration have us to
deemed these offi- its fix the salary Legislature purpose mat- other cers decreased amount. view Any at this either Legislature ter mean that we ascribe would limit lack of abortive attempt an entire or an purpose channel. We expenditure particular with ac- these views in cannot adopt dealing either It tion of our government. a coordinate branch that the amount sal- opinion auditors, aries taken in connection with of county legis- *12 conditions on economic lative this history subject declaration time, legislative at the constitutes a prevailing reduced, the salaries auditors on of be so shall basis, a as to within the proportionate bring aggregate amount for their appropriated payment. here are not with constitutional issue. dealing any
We 'The of Acts of 1933 titles and' appropriation raised, are to identical pertinent any question practically with that of 1932. is Section Code a statutory Under a schedule salaries. legislative history has long been the to Legislature practice deal with sub- of salaries in the annual ject Acts and these appropriation Acts course have the same force as the Code provisions which affect. case of they And inconsistency, appro- date, ifAct, later in priation necessarily prevails. debatable, But if the matter even view of were the fact remains that the is here under- respondent collect, to of mandamus, a by salary writ taking or, made, which has been ex- claim for no a in another the balance claim which pressed way, has been made there- exceed would claim one for for, alleged this makes the and obviously It to treat is impossible debt State. against to a pay the Code a continuing appropriation itself, a enact- subsequent the Legislature item which and which indirection said shall not ment, paid, has by have we held herein suspends temporarily general this point. on
It not to for this Court effects nullify most method legislative solely because direct of legislation not not has been used. We look may favor on with the idea of with salaries of dealing pub- lic officers indirect method down cutting aggre- items gate which provide for the salaries of officers, such but that view would furnish no basis upon which deny Acts Legislature effect which they intended have. obviously
That mandamus proper require proceeding the payment salaries, where the Act to be sought enforced is purely ministerial duty, ques- cannot be tioned. order appealed reversed. Mr. Chief Stabler Messrs. Justice Justices
Bonham and concur. FishburnE
Mr. Carter did on account participate Justice illness.. *13 WILSON,
EPWORTH ORPHANAGE v. TREASURER, COUNTY ET AL. SAME v. TOWN OF MANNING E.,
(193 644) Authorize Issuance Notes and Other Teachers’ Aid Salaries Education Plerein Appropriated.” In we are hav- fortunate upon question, passing and rules of law as well-settled down principles laid ing Court, decisions of our own where Acts numerous violative of very General were Assembly attacked section of the Constitution under consideration. in- In order a statute its unconstitutional, declare doubt, be shown validity beyond should reasonable presumption must in favor every indulged constitutionality of the Act. et McKiever al. v. City of C., 266, al., E., 60; et v. S. S. Poulnot Sumter Cantwell, C., E., 651; Willcox, Battle v. S.