The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-03
THE WIDOW MAYS CLAIM.
Attorney General Hord Advises the
Treasurer Not to Pay 1t.
He Holds that Bills Appropriating Money
Must Be Originated in the Lower
House of the Legisla ture.

voluminous opinion was given yesterday by
Attorney general Hord in reply to the question
submitted tOshim by the Auditor of State relative
to the claim of Mrs. Edwin May, involving the
right of the General Assembly to appropriate
money by joint resolution. The Attorney gen
eral has had the matter under consideration for
nearly month, and his opinion, with due regard
to its Importance, has been very carefully pre-
pared.
In reply to the question, "Can the Senate origi-
nate measure appropriatng moneyi' the an
swer is given that "the constitution provides
that bills may originate In either house, but
may be amended in either, except that bills for
raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives. Revised Statutes 1881, sec
ton 113). This clause is limited to bills that
transfer moneys or property from the people to
the State and does not include bills that appro-
pirate money from the treasury to particular nses
OF the State-It relates to the levy of taxes as
means or collecting revenue, and not to legisla-
tive Disbursements for the purposes Of govern
ment. (l26 Mass, 557; Perry county vs.. Rail-
road company; So Ala, $40.
The second question is: "Can money be drawn
from the Treasury in pursuance of appropria-
ton made by joint resolution" In his answer
Judge Hord cites the constitutional provision in
section 1875 of the Revised Statutes, that mo
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
pursuance OF appropriation made by law" and
In commenting upon the laws bearing upon the
question says: mo law can be passed except by
| bill. This declaration is an memorable command
that no law shall be enacted by joint resolution"
He further says that "a clear and marked DIS
| tinction is maintained throughout the constitu-
| ton between a bill and joint resolution. By
| section II of article 4, "Bis may originate in
| either house. except that bills for raising reve-
| nue. shall originate in the House of Representa-
tives." After ciJing the law upon the manner
Of passing a Joint resolution, he says:
| "There is nothing in the constitution requiring
the presentation of joint resolution to the Gov
ernor for his approval and signature, or author
| izlng the expression of his opposition by veto.
And If appropriations be secured by
| joint resolution, the General Assembly may,
| on the last day of its session, by this sum-
mary method appropriate the public revenue ad
| libtum. Measures affecting the treasury above
all others should be subjected to his scrutiny and
| approval or restraint The public revenue
| should be guarded by moau and watch-tower,
rendering approaches d1latory and difficult, and
! its dissipation impossible. The practice pre-
vailing in Congress has been cited a criterion
: and precedent in this matter. 1t has been held
that joint resolutions of Congress are not dis
! nnguished from bills, and, if approved by the
\ President, they have all the effect of law. e
| Opinions of Attornev-general, 680l The con-
stitution of the United States prescrbes no style
\ or enacting words for the government of the ma
| tiOnal Legislature in the passage of laws,
| nor does it require that laws shall be enacted
| by BILL by resolution, or in any other specified
| form, thereby leaving it discretionary with Con-
| gress in both respects 1t does require, however,
that not only every bill, but every order, resolu-
| ton or vote to which the concurrence of both
| houses may be necessary Except on a question
| of adjournmenD shall be presented to the Presi-
| dent for his approval or dIsapprOval, thereby
making the President limited extent q part
| of the law-makIng power without regard to the
| form which the legislation may assume" (Wil-
sons Digest OF Parliamentary Law, 306 ct seq,
act l, section of Court of U. s., e. s., 1881,
| p. A.
In summing up his citations of law, the At
| torney- general says:
| "Our constitution discriminates between bills
| and joint resolutions their scope and purpose.
| 1t prescribes an enacting clause for all laws 1t
| commands all laws he enacted DV hill. Rllla
| are presented to the Governor for his approval
| Joint resolutions are not, and the practice in
| Congress cannot serve to elucidate a question
| controlled by the memorable rule ordained by
written constitution. 1t is claimed that legisa-
tive action by joint resolution in this matter has
| received a partial sanction In the case OF the
| State VS.. Bailey. (46 Ind, 1907 That decision
| does not involve the question of appropria-
| ton. The case OF the State vs.. Bailey has been
| the subject OF lucid and elaborate discussion
| TO which invite your attention. (WilsOn's Di-
| gest OF Parliamentary Laws, 3o8.)
| 1T is urged that the Legislature has at times
| made appropriations i'll small amounts by joint
| resolution Great Difference has been paid in all
| cases to the action OF the legislative and execu
| tive departments when its officers have been
| called upon under the responsibilities of their
| offices oaths to lnaugurate new system. If
| the question involved is really one OF doubt the
force of their Judgment especially in view of the
| injurious consequences that may result from dis
regarding it, is fairly entitled to turn the scale In
| the judicial mind. When, however, no ambigu-
| ity or doubt appears in the law, the phrases of
the constitution are clear, certain and unambig-
| nous; official practice cannot change abrogate
1t. To allow force to practical construction in
| such case would be to suffer manifest
| peryersions to defeat the evident purpose
| of lawmakers Contemporary construction can
never abrOgate the text; IL can never fritter
| away the obvious sense; it can never narrow
down its true limitation; it can never enlarge it's
natural boundaries. (Cooley's COnst Law, secs.
| SO, 20, 43, 4.
SIT is my opinion that appropriation cannot
| be made by joint resolution. But when there
| has been appropriation made by law the
legislature may disburse it by resolution. Mrs.
| Mays claim has been held to be meritorious by
| legislative action; but If there is appropria-
| ton out of which it can be made. except that
made by said joint resolution, think payment
| should be refused, ana let the court pass upon
| the efficacy of said joint resolution in making
| said appropriation"
| ADJUSTMENTS.