Picking v. State

Bartol, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. The question for 'decision in this case, arises upon an agreed, statement of facts, which shows that the appellant was appointed assistant flour inspector in Baltimore city, {vice S. D. Walker, deceased,) on the 31st day of July, 1863; that he qualified and entered on the discharge of his duties on the 17th day of August, 1863; that between that day and the 1st day of May, 1864, he received from the fees of his office the sum of $2,791.62; and that he has paid no part of that sum into the treasury. The object of the suit is to recover the excess received by ⁵⁰² the appellant, beyond the rate of $3,000 per annum, amounting, according to the account filed with the declaration, to the sum of $>666.62, for which the judgment was rendered below. The decision of the case turns upon the true construction of sec. 1, Article 10 of the Constitution of 1851,:which is in these words; “Section 1.

Every officer of this State, the Governor excepted, the entire amount of whose pay or compensation received for the discharge of his official duties shall exceed the yearly sum of three thousand dollars, shall keep a book, in which shall be entered every sum or sums of money received by him or on his account as a payment or compensation for his performance of official duties, a copy-of which entries in said book, verified by the oath of the officer by whom it is directed to be kept, shall be returned yearly to the Treasurer of the State for his inspection and that of the General Assembly of Maryland; and each of such officers, when the amount received by him for the year shall exceed the sum of three thousand dollars, shall yearly pay over to the treasurer the amount of such excess by him received, subject to such disposition thereof as the Legislature may deem just and equitable. And any such officer failing to comply with the said requisition, shall be deemed to have vacated his office, and be subject to suit by the State for the amount that ought to have been paid into the treasury.” The , appellant was an officer embraced within this provision; the mode of his appointment and the tenure of his office were regulated by the 14th section of the 2d Article ■of the Constitution. And his duties and mode of compensation were prescribed by‘the 4th Article of the Code of Public Local Laws, secs, 330 to 353. By sec. 343, his compensation was secured by allowing one cent for each barrel ox half barrel of flour inspected.

The primary object and design of these provisions of the ’Code was to secure the public against imposition, by pro ⁵⁰³ viding competent officers to inspect, and mark the quality of flour before it is offered for sale. In providing the mode of compensation to the inspector, the Legislature intended to impose the expense of inspection upon the consumer, for whose benefit the law was passed. Inasmuch as' the amounts received for inspection might exceed what would be a fair and reasonable compensation, to the officer, section 1, Article 10 of the Constitution was adopted, the design of which was to fix the maximum of his compensation, at the yearly sum of $3,000, and to increase the public revenue, by requiring the excess to be paid into the treasury. In a case where an officer holds for a whole official year, that is from the first of May, So doubt could exist as to the meaning of the constitutional provision.

But in a case like the present, where the incumbent holds the office for a part of the year only, the question arises whether there must be an apportionment of the whole yearly compensation fixed by the Constitution ; so as to limit the officer to a pro rata sum, or allowance which would be equivalent to $3,000 per annum. This is not provided for in express terms; nothing is said about an