Bowman v. County Commissioners

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question in this case is the constitutionality of chapter 16 of the Acts of 1933. That act repealed and reenacted section 452 of article 13 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland (1930), applicable to Harford County. The section repealed was as follows: “452.

It shall be the duty of said Sheriff to furnish all supplies and provisions necessary, in his judgment, for the support and maintenance of all persons committed to the jail of said county, for which said Sheriff shall be allowed the sum of sixty cents per’ clay for each prisoner confined in said jail, said sum to' be levied by said Board of County Commissioners of Harford County as hereinbefore provided and paid by said Board to' said Sheriff monthly.” This section was re-enacted in the same words, except that forty cents was substituted for sixty cents. The Act of 1933 was passed during the term of the appellant as sheriff. It was passed as an emergency act, and, if constitutional, went into effect as on March 3rd, 1933, the date of its passage. For the month of April the county commissioners allowed the sheriff the reduced per diem, whereupon ho brought suit to recover the difference between the old and the new allowance.

The defendant pleaded the stat ²⁹⁸ ute, to which the plaintiff demurred, and the court overruled the demurrer, and, the plaintiff declining to proceed further, judgment was entered for the defendant for costs. The appe'al is from that judgment. Appellant’s contention is that the act violated section 35 of article 3 of the Constitution of Maryland, which prohibits the increase or decrease,of “the salary or compensation” of any public officer during his term of office. The question is: Is the amount allowed the sheriff for furnishing supplies and provisions “salary or compensation” within the meaning of said constitutional provision ?

Consider both sections 450 and 453 together, and their history will,be helpful. Prior to 1916, for services rendered the county the sheriff received his compensation entirely from fees. By the Acts of 1916, ch. 550, sections 250 and 251 of article 13 of the Local Code of 1888 were repealed and re-enacted with amendments, and two' new sections, 251A and 25IB, were added. The new section 250 provided that the county commissioners should pay the sheriff annually, in monthly payments, the sum of $2,500, which sum should be in full for all claims of the sheriff for “his care, labor,, responsibility and expense in discharging the duties of his office, including the keeping safe in jail, the prisoners committed to his custody, the cooking and serving to said prisoners the provisions furnished for them by said Board of County Commissioners, as hereinafter provided, the necessary washing for said prisoners and keeping the jail in a cleanly condition,” and that the commissioners should not pay him, for any services he might render in the discharge of his official duties, any further or other compensation except a fee of $300 for every execution of the sentence of