Board, etc., v. Lindeman- -165 Ind. 186. 114 Ind. 137, 140, 141; Proctor v. DeCamp (1882), 83 Ind. 559, 561. It is next insisted that "the verdict is contrary to the evidence, because there is no evidence of premeditation.” After a careful examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that the verdict of murder in the first degree was not contrary to the evidence. Judgment affirmed. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PERRY v. LINDEMAN. [No. 20,462. Filed April 5, 1905. Rehearing denied June 22, 1905.] 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-Statutes.-Title.-How Construed.The title of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140), providing that certain officers shall be paid, beginning with January 1, 1900, their "salaries now provided by law," must be construed in the light of the laws existing, which relate to such salaries, the word "salaries" relating to the annual amount fixed to be paid, and not to the contingency of its payment. p. 188. 2. SAME. Statutes.-Title.-Subject-Matter.-The title of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140), providing for the payment of salaries to certain officers from and after January 1, 1900, properly expresses the subject-matter of such statute, as provided by article 4, $19, of the Constitution of Indiana. p. 189. 3. SAME. Statutes.-Amendments.-What Are.-The act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140), providing for the payment of salaries to certain officers from and after January 1, 1900, is not an "amendment" of any statute within the meaning of article 4, $21, of the Indiana Constitution, although it refers to existing laws and to some extent modifies the same by implication. p. 190. 4. SAME. Statutes.-Local or Special.-Where a fee and salary law is not local or special within the inhibition of the Constitution, a subsequent act, which in effect modifies certain contingencies in the payment of certain officers, can not be held invalid. p. 190. 5. SAME.-Statutes. - Officers. Compensation. The question whether a fee and salary law is "in proportion to the population and necessary services required," as provided by article 4, §22, of the Indiana Constitution, is usually for the legislature, and its decision will not be set aside except for a gross departure therefrom or a manifest abandonment or defiance thereof. p. 190. Board, etc., v. Lindeman-165 Ind. 186. 6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-Statutes.-Equal Privileges.-The act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140), providing for the payment of salaries to clerks and sheriffs from and after January 1, 1900, does not grant unequal privileges as inhibited by article 1, §23, of the Indiana Constitution. p. 191. p. 191. 7. OFFICERS.-Public.-Salaries.-Powers of Legislature.-Unless restrained by the Constitution, the legislature may increase or diminish the compensation of a public officer, but after the salary is earned, it can not be taken away. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-Statutes.—Impairing Obligation of Contracts. The act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140), providing for the payment of salaries to clerks and sheriffs from and after January 1, 1900, does not conflict with article 1, §10, of the federal Constitution, providing that no act shall be passed impairing the obligation of any contract. 9. SAME. Statutes.-Public Funds for Private Purposes.-The act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140), providing for the payment of the salaries of clerks and sheriffs from and after January 1, 1900, is not open to the constitutional inhibition of using public funds for private purposes. p. 192. p. 191. From Perry Circuit Court; C. W. Cook, Judge. Action by George J. Lindeman against the Board of Commissioners of the County of Perry. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Philip Zoercher, Oscar C. Minor and John T. Patrick, for appellant. John W. Ewing and Sol. H. Esarey, for appellee. MONKS, J.-Appellee was elected clerk of the Perry Circuit Court, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such clerk, March 11, 1900, and served as such until March 11, 1904. The fees taxed during that period, and which were collectible, were not sufficient to pay his annual salary of $2,000, as fixed by section eighty-three of the act of 1895 (Acts 1895, p. 319, §6488 Burns 1901), and this action was brought under the provision of section one of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 140, §6532a Burns 1905), to recover the amount of said annual salary remaining unpaid from March 11, 1900, to January 1, 1903. A demurrer to the complaint for want of facts was overruled, and judgment rendered in favor of appellee. Board, etc., v. Lindeman-165 Ind. 186. The ruling of the court on the demurrer to the complaint is the only error assigned. Under section one of said act of 1903 the officers named therein clerks and sheriffs-who had not collected and paid into the county treasury fees equaling in amount their respective salaries are entitled to recover the same in full from the county, not, however, extending back further than to January 1, 1900, provided they show in the manner required in said section that the fees earned by them and not collected are not collectible, and that all fees collected by them have been paid into the county treasury. * * * Appellant argues in its brief that said act of 1903, violates (1) article 4, $19, of the Constitution of this State: "Every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in the title;" (2) article 4, §21, of the Constitution: "No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title; but the act revised or section amended shall be set forth and published at full length;" (3) article 4, §22, of the Constitution: "The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws;" (4) article 1, $23, of the Constitution: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens;" (5) article 1, §10, of the Constitution of the United States: "No state shall * * pass any * * * * law impairing the obligation of a contract." If said act, or section one of said act, is unconstitutional, the judgment must be reversed, if not, the judgment must be affirmed. The title of the act is to be read and construed in the light of the law on the same subject existing at the time it was passed in 1903. At that time the salaries of 1. clerks and sheriffs for the different counties in this State were fixed by $$22-113 of the act of 1895 (Acts 1895, p. 319, $86427-6518 Burns 1901). Although these salaries were fixed by said sections, it was provided in §126 Board, etc., v. Lindeman-165 Ind. 186. of said act as amended in 1897 (Acts 1897, p. 31, §6532 Burns 1901), that they were only to be paid such part thereof as equaled the amount of fees earned by them, respectively, and paid into the county treasury during their term of office. Section 127 of said act of 1895 (§6533 Burns 1901) provided that if there is any balance of salary due and unpaid to any such officer at the close of his official term of office, and there were not sufficient fees collected by such officer in the county treasury to pay such balance, it shall be paid out of any fees earned by him during his term of office if collected thereafter. All fees earned by the clerks and sheriffs belonged to and were the property of the counties, unless otherwise provided. in said act of 1895. Under these statutes the salary of a clerk was fixed at a sum certain, although the full payment thereof depended upon the condition that sufficient fees earned by him were collected to pay the same. The subject of the act of 1903, as expressed in the title, when read in the light of the law as above stated, is clear. It was to change the conditions upon which the salaries of the officers mentioned therein were payable for a period in the past commencing January 1, 1900, and as to all clerks and sheriffs after the taking effect of said act. The title of said act clearly shows that the words "salaries now provided by law," used therein, refer to the annual salaries of clerks and sheriffs fixed by 8822-113, Acts 1895, p. 319, $86427-6518 Burns 1901, and not to the conditions upon which the same were to be paid contained in the proviso to $126 of the act of 1895, supra, as amended by the act of 1897, supra. It is evident that said act does not violate the provision of the state Constitution which requires that "Every 2. act shall embrace but one subject, * * * which subject shall be expressed in the title." Constitution, Art. 4, §19. Board, etc., v. Lindeman-165 Ind. 186. The act in controversy does not profess to be an amendment of any statute. It is true that it refers to existing laws and to some extent modifies the same by impli3. cation, but it is not an amendment within the mean ing of article 4, §21, of the Constitution, and is not in violation thereof. State v. Gerhardt (1896), 145 Ind. 439, 452-458, 33 L. R. A. 313, and cases cited; Branham v. Lange (1861), 16 Ind. 497; Barton v. McWhinney (1882), 85 Ind. 481; Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th ed.), 216; 1 Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. (2d ed.), $239. Article 4, §22, of the Constitution provides: "The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: In relation to fees or salaries; except that 4. * * * the laws may be so made as to grade the compensation of officers in proportion to the population and the necessary services required." The fee and salary act of 1895 (Acts 1895, pp. 319-358) was held not to violate said provision of the Constitution. Harmon v. Board, etc. (1899), 153 Ind. 68, and cases cited. If the provisions of the act of 1903 in regard to the payment of salaries had been embraced in said fee and salary law of 1895, it is clear under the authority cited that it would not have rendered said act of 1895 obnoxious to the constitutional provision last quoted. What compensation is "in proportion to the population and necessary services required" is to be ascertained and de termined by the legislature, and can only be set aside 5. by the judicial department of the State when there is a gross departure and manifest abandonment and defiance of the constitutional requirements. Harmon v. Board, etc., supra; Green v. County of Fresno (1892), 95 Cal. 329, 332, 30 Pac. 544; Logan v. County of Solano (1884), 65 Cal. 122, 125, 3 Pac. 463. |