The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-03-08

to show they were Interest. bearing. 4neS
had never borne any interest yet Tor the
benefit Of the School Fund that was said
to be invested in them.
Ia there power in the State under the
Constitution to borrow from the School
Fund to pay these appropriations There
are two provisions Of the Constitution
bearing on this question. One is Art
X sec. 4, which is "No debt shall be con-
tracted by the State except to meet casual
deficits in the revenue, to redeem preVl-
GUS liability of the State, to suppress tnsur'
rection, repel invasion, or defend the
State in time OF war" For which OF these
purposes is 1t proposed to contract this
debt, Probably none need be mentioned
again except '..casual deaCts In the reve'
nue." But this bill doesn't constitute q
casual deficit in the revenue. Its on the
contrary deliberate excess Of sxpendl'
ture. The Legislature with It's eyes open
proposes to pay out $4,000 or 100000
more than will be received. The former
deficits were caused in the same way
There has never been a casual deficit In
the revenue. The revenue has always
been up To the estimates.
The other provision, sec. 8 Of the same
article, Ia:
"Wheneyer any deficiency In the reye'
nue. shall exist In any year, the Legtsla..
ture shall at the regular session thereof
held next after the deficiency occurs, levy
tax for the ensuing year, sufficient with
the other sources of income, to meet such
deficiency, as well as the estimated ex'
penses Of such year"
The object OF the amendment proposed
by Judge Ferguson, to add the words, "au'
thorlty OF law" isto enable the same plan
OF using the School Fund to be followed,
instead oil complying with the constitu'
tional requirement to levy a tax to pay the
expenses OF the State.
Mr.. MofFett also opposed the amend
msnt offered by the gentleman from ka'
nawha In very fair and we'll considered
argument, which will be found fully re-
ported In oui account Of the House pro-
ceedlngs. For this he was visited with
the wrath the Judge, who said this was
q fight started by the newspapers, and
was an attempt to cast disCredit upon the
recent Democratic administration, "and," ="
he added, "it is our duty to support and
def end that administration q
novel proposition 10 make under the cir
cumstanCes.
The result was the rejection Of Mr..
Eyans's amendment, This simply means
that the House OF Delegates Is not willing
to enforce the Constitutional prohibition
concerning the diversion OF the School
Fund, by an additional enactment oil Its
own. This Is shown by the fact that the
Committee on Taxation and Finance,
while recommending an inCsase in the
tax.levy, did It in an informal way which
can amount to nothing. Had the commit
tee been sincere In its recommendation II
would have accompanied the report with
a bill to accomplish the act which 1t ad.
vlsed. This was not done. The levy will
not be increased. Yet in the lace Of this,
appropriations have been made largely in
excess OF the amount that can be raised
from taxation. But one conclusion is pos
sible, and that Ia that the Legislature in.
tends to misapply on additional portion Of
the School Fund.