The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1869-06-04
Morgan Raid Claims Bill Invalid.
OPINION OF THE ATTOR-
NEY GENERAL.
a..- HaUFss II YI.Ictf Ugd
The Payment of 100000
Out of the Stale Treasury
stopped.
The STATE OF OHIo,
OFFICE oFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CoIT1MRIrs Nav 81. I86Q

I
Hon. jus. H. Goldman, Auditor o
St de, Colam6uS, O. aoi,
Sir: l have the honor to acknow
ledge the receipt Of your letter of th,
18th inst, enclosing copy of an &C
purporting TO have been passed by tbc
General Assembly Of The State of Ohio
on the 18th Of April, 1859, entitled
"An act to provide for the payment o
claims for damages growing out Of thj
military expedition of John Morgan, il
the State of Ohio, A. D. 1863" ant
also a copy of that part of the act o
May 5, 1869, making appropriations fo
the year 1869, and the first quarter o
the year 1870, which relates TO the sub
ject of your paying the claims for dam
ages growing out of the military expe
dition aforesaid" You state that The
subject matter Of these claims was not
provided for by any law Of the State
prior to April 80, 1869, and that the
journals of the Senate and House o.
Representatives show that neither. tht
act of AprI 80, 1859, nor tie act o.
May 5, 1869, above referred to, receiUeo
on its passage the votes Of t,0O-tbirds Q,
the members elected TO either house. The
opinion of the attorney general is then
asked as to whether:
First-If the acts of April 9Oth, and
May 5th, 1869, $50 far as they relate
to the payment of the claims referred
to in the first of ssid acts) are cousti-
tutional and valid laws, or unoonstitu-
tional and void.
Second-If said act of April 3Oth
and the part of said act of May 5th,
1869, are unconstitutional, are they
so plainly so as to require an executive
officer TO refuse to execute their proyi-
sions.
You then add 'thst these are grave
and important questions, and as they
are presented for the first time under
that clause of the constitution under
which they arise, you are compelled to
act without the aid Of Judicial interpre-
tatioD, and therefore the most careful
and deliberate consideration of the sub
jeet by the attorney general is invoked
In reply have to say that the con-
sideration asked has been bestowed with
what care and research the attorney
general has been able to bring to the in
quiry, and the conclusion reached to-
getber with the reasoning in support Of
It, is herein respectfully submitted
The question presented is one Of
purely constitutional Interpretation Of
legislative power on the one hand and
executive duty on the other. 1t is not
whether the claims under consideration
are meritoiious-not whether the leg
islature ought to order their allowance
and payment, but whether it has done
so, whether it has enacted any law in
pursuance of which the financial officers
Of the State, acting under their official
oaths, to support the constitution, can
legally apply the public funds to their
payment. In this respect alone has the
subject been considered.
Section 20, article 2, of the constitu-
ton in subtance ordains as follows:
"No money shall be paid on any
claim, the subject matter of which shall
not have been provided for by pre-er-
istiRg law unless such claim be allowed
by two-thirds of the members elected
to each branch Of the general assem-
bly,"
The constitution is paramount to all
"No money can be drawn
from the treasury except in pursuance
of a specific appropriation made By
laW;" Constitution, Art. H., Sec d.
and "no bill can become laaO without
receiving on its passage the number of
votes required by the constitution. -
(Per Thurman, justice in Miller & Gle
sons case, 80, R. R., .475.) Can a bill
to authorize tie payment of claims of
the character described in the constitu-
ton become a law without receiving
the votes of two. thirds of the members
elected to each houseY Is it the duty
of the financial officers of the State to
execute what in the statute book pur-
ports to be a law ordering the payment
Of such claims, which, in point of fact,
did not-snd the legislative journals
show that it did not-on its passage re-
ceive the number of votes required BY
the constitution to constitute it a ldWS
This is believed to be full and fair
statement of the propositions involved.
As the question is practically presented
for the first time, under the constitution,
it is of the gravest importance that it
be correctly decided at the threshold,
apparent injustice to meritori-
GUS demands may seem to resnlt. The
decision must, in same measure-it
may be in controlling degree-con-
stitute a precedent for the future
Hence, by all who hold sacred the in
of the constitution, any
seeming injustice done to merit in its
preservation will be acduiesced in as
preferable TO relief obtained
through its infraction; and the throw
ing open of the door ofprecedent to the
admission and payment of all future
claims, which a mere majority shall de-
eide to be meritorious, however desti-
tute Of that quality they may be in fact
4 prefer to sacrifice my own personal
demands, whatever may be the meas
ure of justice on which they rest, rather
than secure them by an infraction Of
the fundamental law" was the remark
Of an eminent statesman as he cast his
vote for this sacrifice. This sentiment
contains the whole doctrine of constitu-
tional Interpretation and official duty.
The history of the Morgan raid
claims and of the Legislation affecting
them is, briefly: The expedition Of
John Morgan invaded the State in 1868.
It was broken up aud repelled by the
cooperation of government troops, act
ing under national authority, and local
militia acting under State authority.
Much damage was done to citizens by
tbe acts of the oOntendiDg forces, out
which arose the claims under consider
alton.
On the 3Oth of March, 1864, the leg
by an act of that date, raised
a commission to examine and classify
said claims and to "repoft the nature
and amount thereof" distinctly reserv-
ing, by express terms of the act, the
question Of the liability of the State to
pay the same open and undetermined
for future action" This commission