People v. Chapman

California Supreme Court Aug 22, 1882 No. No. 8,402Published

Before: McKee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that legislative acts providing for fixed mileage and salary payments to State Prison Directors were unconstitutional because they conflicted with the California Constitution, which limits such compensation to reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of official duties. Consequently, money received by a Director under these void statutes is recoverable by the State.

Issues

Whether the legislative acts of 1880 and 1881 providing compensation to State Prison Directors are repugnant to the California Constitution.
Whether money received by a public official under an unconstitutional statute may be recovered by the State.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 17 of the Statutes of 1880 and 1881 is therefore unconstitutional and void.”

“Being void, the money received and appropriated by the defendant was withdrawn from the public treasury without authority of law.”

Synopsis

Constitutional Law—State Prison Directors—Compensation—Mileage. ■ By Section 17 of the Act of April 15, 1880, “to define, regulate, and govern the State Prisons of California,” it was provided, that the Directors should be paid for traveling and other expenses, while engaged in the discharge of their duties, twenty cents per mile for the number of miles actually traveled; and by the same section as amended in March, 1881, it was provided that they should receive ten cents per mile for traveling expenses and one hundred dollars per month for other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of official duties.

Held: That the provisions of this Section—whether as originally passed or as amended—were in conflict with Section 4 of Article x of the Constitution; which provides, that “the members of the Board shall receive no compensation, other than reasonable traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of official duties, to be audited as the Legislature may direct.”

Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—The Constitution did not direct the Legislature to audit and allow the expenses of the Directors; it restricted legislative power to directing how and before what tribunal or board “ audit” should be had.

Id.—Construction of Constitution—Proceedings of Convention.—The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and the address of the members of the Convention to the people of the State referred to and considered upon a question of constitutional construction.

Id.—Payment of Money by the Treasurer without Authority of Law.— Money paid by the Treasurer without authority of law is recoverable by the State.

McKee, J.: By Article x. of the Constitution of 1879, there was created a Board of State Prison Directors to consist of five members, who were to he appointed by the Governor of the State, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and to hold their offices for a term fixed by the Constitution. To this Board the charge and superintendence of the State Prison were intrusted; and, in addition, the Legislature was expressly authorized to confer upon the members such other powers and enjoin upon them such other duties in respect to other penal and reformatory institutions of the State as might be prescribed by law. At the same time authority was given to the Legislature to pass such laws as it might deem necessary to further define and regulate the powers and duties of the Board, Wardens and Clerks of the State Prison, and to carry into effect the provisions of the Constitution.

One of these provisions related to the subject of compensa[264]tion to the Directors. By Section 4 of Article ^., it was provided that “ the members of the Board should receive no compensation other than reasonable traveling and other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of official duties^ to he audited as the Legislature may direct.”

In 1880, the Legislature, by an Act entitled “An Act to define, regulate, and govern State Prisons of California,” approved April 15, 1880, enacted as follows: “Section 17. The Directors shall receive no compensation for their services, hut shall he paid for traveling and other expenses, while engaged in the discharge of their duties, twenty cents per mile for the number of miles actually traveled;” and in March, 1881, it„ amended the section so as to read as follows : “ Section 17. The Directors shall receive no compensation other than ten cents per mile for traveling expenses, and one hundred dollars per month for other expenses incurred while engaged in the performance of official duties.”

As a Director the defendant is charged to have received and appropriated for the years 1880 and 1881 the sum of more than three thousand seven hundred dollars, when, in fact, all his expenses, incurred in the performance of his official duties, did not exceed in either year the sum of two hundred dollars; and the action in hand was brought to recover back the money which he has unlawfully received and appropriated. Reception and appropriation of the money as compensation to which he was entitled as a Director, under the statutes of 1880 and 1881, are admitted by the defendant. But it is contended that those statutes are repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution upon the subject of compensation, and were wholly ineffectual to legalize the abstraction of the money from the public treasury. Whether they are constitutional or not is, therefore, the principal question to be decided.

People v. Chapman

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief