New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-04-01
The APPROPRIATION BILL.

= bill No. 175, known as the appropriate
bill, with certain amendments not spec
fed >on the journal, in committee OF tn
whole. This bill, so amended, was CON
|. municated to the Senate.
2. House bill No. 175 was referred I
+ the Senate Committee on Finance, whicl
reported it back with schedule of amend
8 ments. The Senate adopted these amend
ments and passed the bill. The Hous
? | refused to concur in these amendments
and appointed committee of conference
with the Senate. This joint committee
reported back, each to its own house
certain amendments to the bill, which
were adopted by each house. To ascer
tain the authentic text of the appropria
ton act it is only necessary to take the
bill as it passed the House and apply tc
that bill the amendments reported by the
joint committee Of conference.
We are aware it is said the Senate
claims that all of its amendments from
which the committee did not recede
were adopted. We can not view the
question in that light. The House chair
man reports schedule of specific amend
ments. This is adopted by the House. The
Senate in like manner adopts the same
report. This schedule of amendments
upon the bill as passed by the House
would seem to be the true text.
This question, however, was of conse-
quence only to the presiding officers Of
the two houses, and to the executive,
their official signatures being indispensa-
BILE to the legality of any act.
The true point of interest is now
whether and in what manner the act which
received these signature has been
changed from the text accepted by these
officers. The inquiry again subdivides
itself as to the authority Of any officer to
vary the expressed will of the people. We
are concerned to see any officer of the
State claiming that the act providing to
meet the obligations Of the State or any
items thereof should not be promulgated
because it contains items in his opinion |
unconstitutional, because they are not !
in his opinion necessary to carry on the !
State government" or because on the
same authority they are donations out
right. Whatever respect we may accord to
the outside opinion of any one, we can not
consent that they shall be regarded as Of
superior authority to the Legislature.
There may be reasons why the executive
should not sign the bill at all, bu! they
give no officer the power to
mutilate the laws Of the country as they
nave come from the hands of its chosen
lawmakers. This criticism on the law
loes not explain how, where or by whom
he text of the enrolled bill has been
ltered. Upon this point we find in the
Times of yesterday some singular revela-
ions which are attributed to the Auditor
t is there said that
After the adjournment it was proposed
y the committees, or portions of them, to
hange certain appropriations which had | !
cen cut down.
From what can the committees of con-
srence derive authority to touch the bill
hich may have been communicated by
he Legislature to the Governor? A COM
littee of conference is a special agency
} adjust difference between two de- 1
berative bodies. 1t is composed by each Il
the bodies comforting from its own G
embers. Separate, neither of those y
'mmittees can act on the subject re- q
rred to them. The special service per- G.
rmed, the joint committee is dis G.
lived by each body and its members "
nctus oticio. 1t can have no power or
etense to manipulate the very act which @
IS superseded its own brief authority. az
pom what reading Of parliamentary law IL
I'M Coke to Gushing they could imagine ST
authorized to cut an appropri- ST
on up or down we can not conceive. "
. hope they have not done so. But the De
bject grows still more mysterious under Ii
, torchlight of the Auditor TIC
The bill as it came from the Legislature Ut
s sent to the executive with verbal tn
tement "that the appropriations which az
contained were in excess Of the rev. an
les" From whom and by whom was al
message sent Who had this author ait
OF verbal injunction upon the solemn
OF the law? We deal with anonymous
,ncies, but in the same interview We a.
a sentence pregnant with signifcance:1 20,
lfter the adjournment of the Legislature roe
y (meaning the Senate and House par. -
who overlooking after the matterl Of Tx
ID to the chief clerk of the Auditors hei
&c to put that particular appropriation, i'm
king him an allowance, in the bill. ,-'1
Who are the parties who look after ou
legislation of this State while j. is toe
sing from one constitutional depart oo'
ut OF the government, and is awaiting 10
action of another? Who are 1.-THE e4I
ties" who can put into a bill awaiting Isl
cutive signature an item of appro. LOT
'tion which 'cas mot in the biz eiiher sio
/ passed the Senate or House" It was ahl
even in the bill as received from the Del
cutive or as returned by the Auditor. ser
hen. this item be in the hill, 90 r~o boz
gated, the inference is inevitable tlll
''the Senate aad House parties" car
were looking after the matter, as 'ne
: offered to put in this appropriation, gre
so. nee
he great moral of this subject is that 49,
'tiicer or other person has any right g.,