Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-06-08

bonds OF tne state otheF than bank bonds- shall
be annually applied. under the direction Of III
General Assembly; to hepasment OF the PFi9ei
pal Of the public debt.
SKc. g.. No money shall be drawn from tn
treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations mad
by law.
Section two. it will be observed. directs tina
the funds shall be annually applied .under tn
direction Of the legislature" showing that Their
must be under that section a legislative direction
relating to each year; and section tire
points out how the legislative direction Is TO b
given, viz: by an appropriation of the money
And sec. 3 of the act Of February %, 1861
(Acts 1861, .. ll2.) enacts thus:
eff the Auditor of State shall draw any war
rant upon the Treasurer OF State. unless there b.
money in the treasury belonging to the particular
fund upon which the same is drawn, to paw tn
same, and in conformity to appropriations mad,
by law. he shall be deemed guilty of a misde
meanOr, and upon canviction thereof shall 81
fined in any sum not less than one hundred dol
lars nor more than one thousand dollars. and b.
imprisoned in the county Jail not less than ont
nor more than SIX months" 2 G.. and Fl. D. 457
This act Of 1861 is defective in not defining
what an appropriation is. as a guide to the audi
tor in regulating his action but the very fact
that the legislature enacted no definition argues
that they must have supposed that an appropria
ton was something p~alpable. distinct. recogni
Fable, clear in its expression so that it could
not be mistaken.
Can it be possible that this thing of an appro
~priation, so important as to he made the subject
of a distinct constitutional provision. and the mis-
taking Of it by an officer. a criminal offence. Is
anything, everything, and nothing, according to
circumstances something to be ascertained by
conjecture, or created oy Imagination 7
As, then. the treasurer cannot transfer the
money to the state agent without a warrant from
the auditor, and the latter cannot issue the war
rant without an appropriation. the whole question
in the case turns upon the existence of that fact.
The auditor necessarily decided this question
for himself on the application for the warrant,
and he decided against the existence OF an appro
~priation. and refused the warrant. Thereup0E
this proceeding was instituted against him by
creditors to compel the issue of the warrant
The court below ordered the warrant to issue.
The auditor appealed The application for the
wri, was not premature. and If there was an APP
preparation on which II il might issue, the judgment
of the court below was right.
Was there an appropriation There was none
in any act purpOrting to be an appropriation bill.
Can one be construetively created out Of other
acts found in the statute book =
This leads to the inquiry what constitutes an
appropriation within the provision of the consti
sutton prohibiting payment without one. What
is meant by this constitutional inhibition. this
limitation upon executive power why was it
made a part of the law of the state ?
Why were not the executive and administrative
officers left TO their own discretion in the use of
the public revenues History answers these
questions. The restraints contained in all the
American state constitutions. and in the con
~stitution of the United States, upon the pow
ers of the different departments of Govern
ment were imposed with a view to provide
oOo:--f -or,o oh,so ~ e,oh Ouo- vrh.cl,
had oeen p~racticed in England. the country from
which our fathers came. the country, indeed, from
which they ael to escape the evils flowing from
abuses of the powers Of government. Most Of
the provisions os our American constitutions. con
tanning the restraints mentioned, were taken sub
stantially from certain solemn declarat0ry acts
or resolutions of the British Parliament, passed
at certain times in the history Of Great Britain
when the people claimed and were asserting their
rights, or were attacking abuses. and which acts
were regarded as enunciating great fundamental
principles, the observance of which by the Gov
eminent would secure their rights and correct
those abuses. Magma Charta extorted from King
John; the petition of right from Charles the First;
the habegs corpus act under Charles the Second
the bill of rights declared to William and Mary
after the abdication of James the Second, and the
act Of settlement of 10 and - Of William che
Third, are the principal of the great acts deeiara
LOrN OF, ana Qe~iEuc0 10 secure ana peffetuaIe
the Liberties of Englishmen.
Among the principles of government thus set
tied in Great Britain was this: That the King,
or Executive Department, should not use the
money i'm the national treasury except "a specially
appropriated by Parliament. In the earlier period
of English history. it appears that the King both
levied. or imposed, and expended the public reve
nues by his own authority. He was thus indie
pendent of his people, and. as a matter almost of
course. was tyrannical and wasteful in admins
tration. See Black. Comm. chapt.S.
The first important check on this monev power
of the King was the establishment of the great
principle chat without the sanction of Parliament
no tax of any kind can be imposed" This prin-
ciple rendered the King dependent upon the legis
lative power for the amount of money he might
expend. but still left it TO his discretion, or that
of his officers, to spend the money raised by Par
lament at will-that is. to apply il to such claims
made upon the treasury, as he or they chose, to
the neglect of others. The money was used
where self qualification, favoritism and corrnp
ton could be best accomplished while Just de-
mands upon the treasury were left unpaid
awhile DANNY was at the head of the finances,
the creditors had received their dividends. though
not with the strict punctuality of modern times;
but since the victory won by the court over the
Wings. not a farthing had been paid, and no re
dress granted to the sufferers till a new dynasty
established a new system" (Macaulay, vol. L,
p. 224 Till that was done the public creditors,
he says. we're plundered, and the public revenues
wasted in extravaganza and corruption by the
court. The new system referred to was estab-
lished at the revolution of 1853. and was regarded
as Of the highest importance. What il was is
thus stated in Greasy on the English Constitution
p. 293:
ain addition to this important guarantee 1.-THE
mutiny act.) for the regular meeting of Parlia-
ment. a system of settling the roval revenue was
established in Williams reign. which necessitated
the observance Of the same constitutional princi
pie. The House Of Commons then determined
no longer TO vote TO the crown certain general
large sums Of revenues to be applied to particular
purposes. according to the ROYAL discretion; but
they appropriated specific parts of the revenue to
specific purposes of government This principle
had been previously attempted, but il is only
since 1865 that it has been strictly enforced"
SAYS Mr.. Hallam. in his Constitutional History,
p. 555: "This great and fundamental principle,
as It has long been justly considered, that the
money voted by Parliament Is appropriated. and
can only be applied, to certain specified heads of
expenditure. was introduced, as | have before
mentioned, in the reign of Charles III, and gener-
ally, though not in every instance. adopted by his
Parliament. The unworthy House Of Commons
that sat in 1855. not content with a needless aug
mentation of the revenue, took credit with the
King for not having appropriated their supplies;
but, from the Revolution, il has been tbe invari-
able usage The Lords of The Treasury. by a
clause annually repeated in the appro -~riat.on act
Of every session, are forbidden, under severe pen
alties, to order by their warrant any moneysin the
Exchequer, so Appropriated. from being issued for
any other service, and the officers of the Elk
chequer to obey any such warrant. This has
given the House of Commons so ~effectual a con
troll over the executive power. or. more truly
speaking, has rendered it so much a participation
in that power. that no Administration can possibly
subsist without its concurrence" at is TO this
transference of the executive government (Sor the