Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-01-25

I, SATURDAY,, j.
for two years. and section 43 of art. |
names the order in which they shall be |
made. These sections have reference |
only to such appropriations as should be |
made by the 29th general assembly |
which was to meet IN January, 1877
and succeeding ones.
THE SUPREME COURTS HYPOTHESIS.
The dictum of the court must have
been on the theory that the annual ap-
preparations were not in the order pre-
scribed by the constitution, and not in
harmony with it. If this was the hy-
pothesis. then none of the appropriations
were in the order prescribed. not even
for the pay of the civil list. from which
the judges OF the court were paid. and
they did not question. so far as am ad-
y,sed, my authority to draw their
warrants, from the fact they were
all passed before its adoption. II it had
been the intention of the trainers OF the
constitution to repeal by that instrument
annual appropriations, and if that had
been a the time the received construc-
ton, 1t would have necessitated the I'M
mediate convening of the legislature to
providet the necessary means for the sup
port OF the state institutions and for other
purposes, at q cost perhaps equal to the
amount to be provided for. 1t certainly
did not occur to them that their adjourn
ment in the event OF the approval of
their work was to be followed by call
cd session OF the general assembly. 1t
is questionable whether called or a
specialF session of the legislature can
make regular appropriations for two
years or any fraction thereof. The re-
suit, therefore, would have been the
closing of the eleemosynary and educa-
tional institutions rs well as the penl-
Tertiary or the convenlng of the legisla.
ture to exercise doubtful power.
This state OF affairs was not contem-
plated but this would have been the ef-
feet it the decision is correct. 1t will
not do to say that because there was an
imperative necessity to support these
institutions by drawing the warrants,
that no warrants should have been is
sued for those matters where the abso-
lutte did not exist. They must all stand
or fall together; for they were all the
creatures OF law, and the auditor had ne
discretionary power IN the premises au-
thorizing him to distinguish in favor OF
some as against others.
AN UNEQU1vocAL POSITION.
take the unequIvocal position that it
was not the intention of the trainers OF
the constitution to disturb the then ex-
listing appropriations, annual or other
wise, but the constitution had reference
only to future appropriations. As none
of them at the time were in harmony
with the constitution, it could not in the
nature of things refer to them or be in
Ftended TO repeal them.
AS an additional justification for my
action in the premises. l will further
state that this Interpretation of the con-
stitution was accepted and acted upon
/ by all the elective officers of Governor
Hardin's administration. including the
executive himself. for thirteen months,
and its soundness or propriety was not
at any time questioned, although 1t was
canvassed and considered before its
adoption. The views of some Of the
most eminent lawyers in the constitu.
tional convention were sought on this
point, none of whom hesitated in giving
that instrument like Interpretation.
But whatever view you may take. il
: cannot be denied that the sum covered
by these warrants, except, No. 211. wa:
tor valid Indebtedness of the state. ere
: ated by law, which was paid sooner by
the warrants than it would have beer
> under a reference to the legislature TO
spoeiai appropriations in rne way OF De
: ficiencles. have the honor to be YER,
respectfully. THOS, HOLIDAY.
State Auditor.
MIsAPPLIED APPROPRIATION.
Section of an act appropriatinI
|. money to erect a supreme court buildin,
q claws 1877. page 27,) sets apart $500
t to furnish the courtroom, judges rooms
. and clerks Office. &C., to be drawn b
q the commissioners. Under this claus
: the chiet Justice purchase from Muelle
Bro, dealers in furniture, bills to tn
D amount of 81, ,463 81, from which tn
j, committee have struck off and disal
v lowed the following items as being i'm
:, proper charges against the state, th
furniture meant by the law being ofic
J. furniture: ~
Il 5 dressing case suits, S42 each. s21O
o. wire mattresses, 81 each. ;............. IS
moss mattresses. $6 25 each ............ 30
a Total ...- ........................ .s277
5. Only 5000 of the above bill was pait
l. because the $4,000 appropriation wa
q exhausted. There is also bill
o Mueller Bros, of $138 25. for bath tn
.o and piping. unpaid Tor want of apprt
o priation. ......
7, SUPREME COURTS CONTINGENT FUN
n MIsAPPLIED.
80 Observation-Disclosures oot -. 1917
u 15), section II. sets apart $4,000 for th
u contingent fund of the supreme cour
. The object of the contingent fund, ]
y the view OF the committee, is to pr
y vide for certain expenses directly r,
r sulting IN the performance OF oifici,
Guty, but which at the time the apprt
% priation is made cannot be foreseen, ar
> tho use OF which is limited thereto. A
the following bills do not come with
. the Furview of a contingent fund, tt
= committee refuse to allow them:
- Voucher No. l, ,7oo-Miss Minnie Mil
y ler, making Id pair pillow cases,
h 50 so, and 10 pair of sheets, S5 ...S 50
Voucher Mol ,73s-Dollmeyer 4 Co.
!. | l pair blank.ts, IS so; l spread
l. % 81, for Judge Norton ........... s 90
i. so yards sheeting, els; 27x yards
ss. speois. Sc; ss !: 50 towels. ss IS. for 70
4 judges '''',''''''''..'''.,..'' '': .m s05
e Voucher No. l.2Os-Supreme court
ID washing. months .............. 20
"a Voucher No. l.73s-Supreme court
:. washing, 2months. Observation-Disclosures. 20
l. Voucher No. l,764-Supreme court
,r washing, months. .......... p
~ Voucher No. 1876 Supreme court
~ washing, months hs............. %
q Last four Items paid Matte Mock
in Voucher No. .5T-A. J. Shockey.5
~, toilet sets for supreme judges...... 81
- All the above bills were approved b
y, Chief-Justice Sherwood.
:; The committee also reject the follow
= ing vouchers, paid out of the contingel
~ :, fund OF the supreme court to Jesse v
- Henry, assistant librarian. approved /
~. the chief justice. Section 8, chapter l:
~ Wagner's Statutes, authorizes the libr
e. rian to appoint an assistant who shall /
- a allowed reasonable compensation. to |
~ paid out of the appropriation Tor civ
officers. The legislature fixed the con
lE pensation of the assistant librarian
$500 yearly, and appropriated that su
in for the purpose. The committee do n
H. think the supreme Judges have the a
D. thority to increase his salary 50 per d.
n and nay tho Sap,a opt NJ fh.;s oo,,,