Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-05-09

the inieres; or he STATE debt to the CITY Of New
York when it j. payable
That the history Of the section shows that it
was not 20 designed by the Legislature.
To all THIS HIS Exceleacy answers by pressing
his definition, and conciuaes:
The command is plain. direct. unconditional.
and must be obeyed. II before technical 0hec
tons could be raised OF the want OF a formal ap
preparation. they we're completely removed. Will
the Treasurer perform this most plain and i'm
portaut dstyI ] believe he will I believe he Is
an honest man. and will not permit any influence
to stand between him and the discharge Of duty
50 vital 70 the good name and welfare OF the
State"
He substitutes for sound reasoning dogmatic
statement Of what he understands the law to be.
accompanied by an equivoc4l compliment 20 the
integrity OF the Treasurer OF State, msde cOntin
gent upon the Treasurer paving the Interest
His Exceliency j of the opinion that Democrat
may be honest upon contingency. The De
mocracy generally will appreciate at high rate
His Excellencys great magnauimity. his TX
cellency devotes considerable portion OF his
letter 10 convincing Mr. IVinsiOr. that have
not maintained a consistent position upon the
subject of appropria,i0ns-tha have given the
Auditor Of State opinions favorable to the issuing
Of warrants when, had / adhered to the principles
stated in my interest opinion, the decision would
have been otherwise
As have not the distinguished honor of Mr..
| Winsl0ps acquaintance, am unable TO say
whether the labor OF His Excellency will be
source OF pleasure or distress 10 him, and am
unable 10 see hoS His Excellency's charge, If 1t
true. would weaken NV argument on
the interest question II WAS right then. want
of consistency would not make it wrong; II l was
wrong, consistency would not have made tright.
The concluding paragraph OF His Excellency's
letter has "A strange look IN a communication adj
dressed TO a citizen OF the State OF New l 0rk
upon a purely legal question.
His Excellenev saws: The law is plain; the
money is IN the Treasury and if the interest is
not paid the responsibility will rest with those
officers upon whom the law has devolved the duty
OF making the payment
Responsibility 70 whom? the creditors Of the
State. or to some other partyI
The question with Mr. Winslow. is. will the
interest be pad2
With His Excellency, il Is Il question Of official
resD0B sibiiiiy-a question of whose shoulders
shall bear the burden he and his party friends
voluntarily assumed
Had His Excellencs been as sensitive upon the
subject of official responsibility at the time the
appropriation bill should have been passed. the
legal question discussed by him would never have
beer presented He and his friends assumed
|
BILL and have no right to ask the Auditor and
| Treasurer of State To violate the Jaw and subject
themselves To the penalties prescribed in the EN-
bezzlement BILL TO relieve them of its conse
quences.
Ii is manifest that this part Of His Excellency's
letter designed for political rather than fnan-
cial circles; for Indiana rather than New York
consumption.
His Excelency saws / gave the opinion
tb fb,t 10 a.
was no specific annual appropriation for that pur
pose. and then practically diSsented from the doc
trine by drawing nv own salary. His Excellency
is mistaken. | gave no such opinion | ex
pressly stated that an appropriation might be spe
citc, for single wear, that il might be cOntin
uing. and showed that appropriation bill of
either class existed authorizing the payment Of
the interest
| His Excelencv was also aware. and forgot to
mention, that section OF Acts of lc6l, page Ia,
contains the following provisions:
"Such Attorney General shall receive for his
compensation the sum of one thousand dollars
per annum, to be audited and paid quarterly out
OF the State Treasury
His Exceencv also forgot to inform Mr.
! WinsioU that the Salary Act of 1859. q &. Il II d,
539,) under which the salaries of the various
State officers are being paid, contains the follow
ing provison:
| SECTION 4. nat tneIe snail DE allowed 10 the
several officers of Government, and persons here
matter mentioned. the following annual salaries,
to be paid quarterly out of any moneys in the
Treasury belonging to the general fund. and not
specially otherwise appropriated by law" &c.
Do not these acts set aside money for partcu
lar purposes. and authorize it to be taken from
| the Treasury for application to those purposesl
Perhaps His Excellency can see no difference
between these sections. and the acts OF 1876 and
lc41. and this may explain his omission to set
them out.
His ExceIency dwells with particular emphasis
upon the opinion given as 70 the 32d section OF
the act of March ,. lc55 Il q. x II 339)
| The section authorizes the State Offices TO fur
nsh. at the expense Of the State the necessary
record books and office rent and stationary for
certain Offices. ! think that legislative direc
ton to certain officers who have the money of
the State in their hands to furnish. at the ex
pense of the State certain articles for the public
service, amounts TO appropriation BILL and
presents very different case from that made by
His Exceliency.
There are other points in His Excellencys
letter TO which would like to call attention, but
this communication is already of greater length
than designed il should be and bring it to
close
The State officers are determined TO perform
their duties according TO their understanding of
the law. They regret that differences "a to
official duties should exist between His Tx.
ceilency and themselves, but will not ia conSe-
quence of this want OF agreement vary from the
line of conduct they have marked out, which Is TO
adhere strictly to the legal rules regulating their
duties. Respectfully.
| Oscar Horn