The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1863-05-22

section and the 10th section before quote
are parts of the same act, and are to
. construed together.
Iae practice under the act of 1859 hs
been this: At convenient time besor
the tlrst of January and July, OF each yea
the Treasurer would transmit to New Yor
sum OF money sufficient to pay the intel
est, place 1t there in the hands Of the Aseu
OF State, taking his receipt for the same. an
afterwards take this receipt to the Auditor
and obtain the necessary warrsnt TIL;
practice prevailed throughout $50 and Is6
under the administration of Nathaniel +
cunningham as Treasurer, and John w
Dedd as Auditor, and alterward through
1861 and 1869. under the administration o
Jonathan s. Harvey as Treasurer, and AL
bert Lange as Auditor.
Ihe 10th section was regarded aud actes
upon by the State Officers as making tn. in
'erest an exceptional case, not governed by
the 9Th section.
10 show that the Legislature did not re.
gard the section have quoted from the ac
OF 1899 as constituting sufficient appropri
alton. he makes the following statement:
Bearing upon the effect of the section
call your attention to the fact, that the
same Legislature that enacted il, and after
II, u had been passed. passed an appropriation
bill appropriating $3.50, 900 for interest for
the year 1859, Acts 1859, Is } also. $780,
+ 900 for interest for 1860 (Acts 1850. IA \
and the Legislature of 1861 made similar
appropriations for the years 1851 aud 1869.
Acts 1861. pages and ~
On the l1th day of April, 1868, the At.
torney General obtained from the Auditor a
warrant for his salary for the quarter end
lns on the 31st of March, 1868, which war
rant was promptly paid by the Treasurer.
The payment of this salary was legal and
proper. and | refer to the fact only to show
that The Attorney General has made prac
lcal decision Of the question at variance
with his written opinion.
The act of 1861, which contains the spe-
cific appropriations fer the payment of the
interest on the public debt, also contains
specihc appropriations for the payment OF
the salary of the Attorney General and
other Officers of State. Yet the absence of
sPec'hc appropriations for salaries in 1868
Is not IN the opinion OF the Attorney GEN
eral, sufficient reason why he should not
draw his salary.
lie argues, in substance, that the L,gis-
lature OF 1861 believed the section | have
quoted from the Treasury act not a suffi-
cient appropriation to pay interest, else they
would not have made special appropriations.
According to this logic the Legislators
was OF the opinion that the general law leg
uiating the salaries of State Officers, also
passed in 1859. was not sufficient t.A---..a---+
slz1 sr9nmenf. hLsaf drawn from Legislative action
the Attorney General enters his practieai
Tie genera, ssiary come
within his definition of an appropriation. IL
does not set apart any speclhc sum or fund
for the payment of salaries. 1t is general
in its character. aud is an authority to pay
oat of any money in the Treasury not 9th
erwise disposed OF.
The SD section of the act regulating lees.
approved March 2, 1855 reads as follows:
:. The Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer
OF State, shall furnish at the expense OF the
State the necessary record books ari ofhce
rent and stationery for the Offices OF the
Secretary, Auditor. and Treasurer OF State
and Clerk OF the Supreme Court, and fuel
AMI stationery for the use OF the General
Assembly"
The Attorney General. in a written opin-
ion recently delivered to the Auditor, deci-
ded that this section makes an appropriation.
and authorized the Auditor to draw war
rants, aud the Treasurer to pay them, Tor
the purposes therein mentioned. The sec
ton does not contain an appropriation In
terms, nor does it set apart any money OF
fund II declares, however, that certain
articles shall be furnished at the expense OF
the Sts'e. from which the Attorney General
inters the appropriation and the authority
to take the money from the Treasury, Is
the declaration that certain articles shall be
!. furnished at the expense of the S,ate,strong
er than the solemn promise Of the State re-
peafedly made to pay the interest upon her
/ debt at certain place and atspecIted times!
Can authority to take money from the
Treasury be inferred in one case aad not Ia
the other II, when provision is made to
! furnish certain articles at the expense OF the
State, it is a necessary Inference that the
money to pay the expense shall De drawn
from the Treasury, is it not likewise ne
scessary inference that money shall De taken
from the Treasury to meet the interest on
tthe nublic debt which The State solemnly
bound herself to pay at particular time
and place And how can the Attorney
Genera. hold this section to be an sppropri
alton. and break the force OF the 10Th sec
lion in the Treasury act Of 1859, by calling
lit directory? And il the Treasury act 0
lis59. and the Embezzlement bill OF 1861
do not impair the character OF this secsIo'
j as a good appropriation, nor make payment
under it penal, with what show of reasor
can it be pretended that they affect the righ
TO nav the interest on the funded debt o
the State
It's no. 10 be supposed that the paymen
of the isterest upon the public debt shoul'
~ Iaf. to the uncertainty of legislation hon
IN wear. to be hindered or defeated b.
F'ha accidental or viifol failure of any leg:sls
,.re 10 make an appropriation. It
eminen,ly proper that il should have bee
Inroyided for by general and continuing legis
t.,;on. and not left open to the neglect c
caprice OF each succeeding Legislature
; It is OF the essential nature Of such stocl
.ha. permanent provision be made for th
n.rmen. of the interest, and if 1t we're unde
stood that the interest was not provided fel
and is payment depended upon legistatio
! tom wear 10 year, the value of our stoci
I in the market would be greatly diminishe
Iaaa our chances for future negotiation