The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1869-06-04

lieation of section twenty-nine of article
two of the constitution above quoted
The act of April both, 1869, is Preced
ed by preamble, part of which, will
the first clause Of the article, reads as
follows:
| "WHEREAs, The. commissioners un
der the act of March 3Otb, 1854, and
an act supplementary thereto, passed
May 5tb, 1868, to examine claims grow
ling out Of the military expedition o
John Morgan, having investigated and
0llowed claims for damages sustained
by citizens of the State of Ohio to the
amount of $3.50, ,s37; therefore,
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Gen
eral Assembly of the State of Ohio
That there may be appropriated from
any money that may hereafter be in thC
treasury belonging to the general rev
enue, DC"
1t is apparent that this act in III
terms does not purport to allol0 sait
claims, but as erroneously reeited in the
preamble proceeds upon the incorrect
assumption that they had been previous
Ily allowed by the act of March 3Oth,
1884, when in a point of fact the legis-
lature had in express terms declared in
said act of 1864, that its Intention was
not thereby to alzow said claims, but to
leave the question of the liability of the
State open and undetermined for future
action.
Nor does the said act of April 30,
1869, make any direct or present ap-
preparation. 1t only purports to author
ize an appropriation to be made at some
future period. 1t does not enact, as is
usual in such bills, that ''there is here
by appropriated" but only that there
may be appropriated" thus purportiDg
to grant authority by one act to make
an appropriation by some future act.
This act, then, does not allow these
claims, for nowhere in it is there an al
lowance declared; nor is it an act Of
appropriation, for no present appropri-
alton is made by It.
The Legislature seems to have re-
cognized the fact that the act of April
80, 1869, did not make any appropria-
ton, otherwise it would not have, as it
has substantially incorporated it into
the general appropriation bill OF May 5,
1859, only changing its terms SO far as
to make the appropriation present and
positive. This would have been wholly
Unnecessary if the act of April 80, had
been regarded as constituting an ap-
preparation.
These two acts of April 30, and May
5, 1869, seem to have been passed on
the assumption that the clause of the
constitution which requires the concur
renee of two-thirds for the allowance
and payment Of these claims might be
satisfied BY a series or succession of acts
concurred in by less number, the first
being treated as the ''pre-existiug law"
required by that clause.
The sense of the constitution is too
palpable for such Interpretation. It
so obvious and self-evident as to be in
capable of doubt or greater clearness of
exposition. 1t recognizes two classes of
claims; One, the subject matter Of
which shall have been provided for by
pre-existing law; the other the subject
matter of which shall not have been so
provided for. For the payment of the
former class no allowance is necessary
other than an act of appropriation con-
CURED in by mere majority. AS to
the latter class, no payment thereof can
be legally made until they be allowed
by the concuriDg votes not of msjori-
ty merely, but of two-thirds of the
members elected to each house. About
this doubt is impossible.
The only possible room for contro-
versy is as to what, in the sense of the
constitution, is meant by 'pre-existing
law as applied to the subject matter,
of claim. Those who advocate the
validity Of the acts under consideration
evidently assume that it means law
allowing the claim passed at any time
anterior to the act making appropriation
for its payment
Under this Interpretation the concur
renee of two-thirds might in every case
be dispensed with, and the constitu-
tional clause requiring it rendered nu-
gatory for the same majority that might
concur in the antecedent allowance
could make the subsequent appropria-
ton and both within the same hour
The authors of the constitution could
not have intended this They must
have contemplated class of claims
which they intended should not be paid
in any event. no matter how just or
meritoriOus they might be, until their
allowance shall have been coucurred 10
and the obligation Of the state fixed by
the votes of two-thirds, as prescribed.
Any other Interpretation of this clause
renders it an unmeaning nulhty. IF the
constitution provided that no money
shall be paid on any claims which shall
not have been provided for by 'pre-ex-
isting law, unless allowed by tWo-thirds,'
etc, there might have been possible
question in regard to its meaning. But
such is not the provision. 1t is the
subject matter of the claim and not the
claim itself that must have been pro-
Vided for by 'pre-existipg' law. A claim
and its subject matter must, therefore,
not be cOnfounded, but carefully distin-
guished. A claim, 10 the constitutional
sense, is any subsisting pecuniary de-
mand for reward or remuneration on
account Of something previously done
or suffered. Its subject matter is that
something so previously done or suf-
fered, out of which the claim has arisen.
The latter is the producing cause, the
claim, is its result In the verv nature
of things then, the subject matter of a
claim, the act previously done or suf-
fered, out of which it arose, ceases to
have being upon the instant the claim
originates. Therefore the subject mat
ter of a claim is anterior in point of
existence, to the origin of the claim it
self.
But to provide for by pre-existing law
of necessity implies a law enacted an
terror to the existence of the matter
provided for. Hence the very idea of
providing for matter by pre-existing
law, enacted after the matter to be pro-
vided for has ceased to exist, is a self
evident absqrdity. is, therefore, i'm
possible that a law enacted after a claim
has nririnatad. can make nrnvisinns for