sought the services of a bank. He could and doubtless would have assumed the risk himself if he had known the bank furnished him practically no protection.

The word "remit" in its primary sense means to send in return, as money in payment of goods. Transmit is to send through or across; to act as a medium of passage. The word "remit" as applied to the facts of the case at bar is not an apt term. But fine shades of meaning should not be resorted to in a transaction such as this. Plaintiff's purpose was simple and easily understood. It is very evident that he delivered his money to defendant with a sense of assurance that the bank was responsible to him for the delivery of the money which he desired to send. This is a natural, common-sense view of a very simple transaction. There can be no doubt but that the business public generally, including a vast majority of those experienced in commercial transactions, hold the belief that when money is delivered to a bank to be sent by it to a person in a foreign country, as in this case, the initial bank accepts the trust. with the understanding that should the money be lost or paid by a subagent to a person not entitled to receive it the initial bank is liable in the first instance to the principal. This is a reasonable rule and does not impute to the public a knowledge of the customs that may prevail in banking circles but which are actually unknown to the public. No hardship will fall to anyone. Banks accepting moneys to be sent abroad will doubtless charge a fee or carriage charge commensurate with the risk assumed, if this is not already the practice. Surely a person would much prefer to pay a reasonable charge for the privilege of enjoying the protection which the law of agency supposedly affords than to be left to the dubious remedy of proceeding against an agency not of his choosing. A departure from the doctrine laid down in the three California cases, if the rule there adopted extends to this case, will not unsettle business conditions nor disturb vested rights.

Inasmuch as the question involves in a measure our relations and dealings with foreign countries it would seem as a matter of policy and convenience that the several states should follow so far as possible the rule adopted by the supreme court of the United States.

The judgment of the trial court, in my opinion, should be affirmed.

[S. F. No. 10513. In Bank.-March 21, 1923.]

CHARLES L. WINES, Petitioner, v. E. F. GARRISON, as Auditor, etc., Respondent.

[1] STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.- Every statute must be construed in the light of the constitutional restrictions upon the power of the legislature.

[2] PUBLIC OFFICERS COMPENSATION OF DEPUTIES-CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 4290, POLITICAL CODE.-Section 4290 of the Political Code, providing that salaries and fees provided in that title shall be in full compensation for all services rendered by the officers named, their deputies and assistants, unless otherwise specified, and that all deputies shall be paid by their principals out of the salaries of the latter, unless otherwise provided, is applicable to counties in which deputies are authorized to be paid directly from the county treasury.

[3] ID. INCREASE OF COMPENSATION DURING TERM-ADDITIONAL DEPUTY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-A statute passed during the term of a public officer authorizing the payment of an additional deputy from the county treasury is an increase of salary within the meaning of the constitutional inhibition, whether the officer was originally paid a lump sum or was, in addition to his own compensation, allowed a certain number of deputies paid by the county.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the Auditor of Alameda County to compel him to audit a demand. Writ denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Fitzgerald, Abbott & Beardsley for Petitioner.

Ezra W. Decoto and Frank Mitchell, Jr., for Respondent.

WILBUR, C. J.-This is an original application for a writ of mandamus. Charles L. Wines, the petitioner, is a deputy in the office of the superintendent of schools of Alameda County. When the superintendent of schools began his term on January 6, 1919, he was allowed an assistant, a

3. Provision for compensation of additional deputy or assistant as violation of constitutional inhibition of increase of officer's salary during term, note, L. R. A. 1918C, 561.

chief deputy and an additional deputy, but in 1921 the legislature allowed the superintendent of schools an additional deputy. The petitioner fills the position thus created for the first time by the legislature of 1921. His petition, he says, "involves the right of the legislature to increase the number of deputies allowed to a county officer, who at the commencement of his term has a fixed salary and deputies paid by the county."

This question was determined adversely to the contention of the petitioner in the recent case of Forward v. County of San Diego, 189 Cal. 704 [209 Pac. 993]. The decision was by the court in Bank and a petition for rehearing was denied, after due consideration.

The petitioner seeks to have us overrule this decision, claiming that we have therein given an erroneous construction to section 4290 of the Political Code. He also contends that the matter is of very great importance to counties and county officers, and for that reason prays a careful reconsideration of the matter.

We have therefore again considered the question which is presented by the petitioner. The respondent makes no argument and presents no brief.

We will not undertake to follow the argument of the petitioner in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioner contends that the question involved here is not one of constitutional law but primarily one of statutory interpretation, and that section 4290 of the Political Code in the light of its legislative history beginning with the enactment of the first County Government Act in 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 299) down to date shows that the provisions of section 4290 of the Political Code do not apply to Alameda County wherein the legislature has provided for deputies to be paid directly from the county treasury. This legislation originally was in the form of a separate act known as the County Government Act and in 1907 was for the first time incorporated in the Political Code, sections 4000 to 4235, inclusive (Stats. 1907, pp. 354-558). We will, therefore, use the expression "County Government Act" and "Political Code" indifferently throughout this opinion in referring to the provisions of the statute controlling the salaries of county officerr. The first clause of section 4290 of the Political Code reads as follows: "The salaries and fees provided in this title.

shall be in full compensation for all services of every kind and description rendered by the officers named in this title either as officers or ex-officio officers, their deputies and assistants, unless in this title otherwise provided, and all deputies employed shall be paid by their principals out of the salaries provided in this title, unless in this title otherwise provided. . . ."

As we construed this section in Forward v. County of San Diego, supra, the phrase "unless in this title otherwise provided" referred to the provisions made for the payment of deputies in the County Government Act and we held that where assistants were appointed who were not specifically provided for in the County Government Act, they could not be paid from the county treasury, but must be paid by the officer, if paid at all. Consequently, it followed under numerous prior decisions of this court that where the legislature relieved the officer of that necessity by making the salary of the deputy payable by the county, it, to that extent, ipso facto increased his salary.

The argument now advanced to support a different conclusion is substantially as follows: The phrase "unless in this title otherwise provided" in section 4290 of the Political Code, in the light of the history of the section, applies to those counties such as Alameda County, wherein provision is made for the payment of deputies by the county instead of by the county officers. Consequently, it is urged that where under the code a county officer is allowed any deputy payable from the county treasury, in his case it is "otherwise provided" in the title and consequently the requirement in the section that the officer must pay such deputy does not apply and therefore the legislature may provide for an additional deputy who may also be paid from the county treasury without increasing the compensation of the officer.

[1] It is true in one sense that this is a question of statutory construction, but it is also true that every statute must be construed in the light of the constitutional restrictions upon the power of the legislature so that it is necessary to consider those constitutional provisions in arriving at the proper interpretation of the statute.

Petitioner's argument proceeds somewhat in this fashion. Section 164 of the County Government Act of 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 361) provided as follows:

"The salaries and fees provided for in this Act shall be in full compensation for all services of every kind and description rendered by the officers therein named, their deputies, and assistants; and all deputies employed shall be paid by their principals, out of the salaries hereinbefore provided; . . .” ." Section 163, subdivision 15, of this act (page 339), in providing for salaries of the seventh class provided that a limited number of deputies should be paid salaries from the county. It is pointed out that this provision in section 164 is inconsistent with the one providing for the payment of deputies by the county itself and, therefore, the argument is that section 164 was intended to apply only to counties in which a lump sum was fixed as the salary of the officer, and not to counties where the county pays the deputies directly.

The petitioner's argument proceeds upon the theory that there are two classes of counties in the County Government Act, one in which the county officers are paid a lump sum and the other in which the deputies are paid directly by the county and presumptively the amount allowed to the county officer is for his own personal services. This position cannot be maintained under the previous decisions of this court. The County Government Act never has used the phrase "a lump sum" and this nomenclature was introduced into our legal literature in connection with the alleged unconstitutionality of the County Government Act in providing in some counties for deputies to be paid by the county and in others that all deputies should be paid by the principal, it being contended that this differentiation destroyed the uniformity of county government required by the constitution (Tulare County v. May, 118 Cal. 303 [50 Pac. 427]).

The question involved in the case at bar was decided against the petitioner, in principle at least, in 1892 in the case of Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601 [16 L. R. A. 161, 28 Pac. 834, 29 Pac. 1092].)

Section 164 of the County Government Act of 1883 (Stats. 1883, p. 361) was renumbered as section 211 (Stats. 1885, p. 194) and was amended in 1887 (Stats. 1887, p. 207). By this amendment a proviso was inserted after the abovequoted language as follows: "and provided further, that whenever, in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors, the salary of any county officer in the third, fourth, fifth,