The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-22
THE MAY MANDAMUS SUIT.
Judge Taylor Overrules Plaintiffs De-
murrer to the Return.


favor for $40. 600. The circumstances of the
case are these: Mrs. May brought a claim be-
fore the last legislature for services rendered
by her late husband, Edwin May, as architect
of the new State-hOuse. Joint resolution was
drawn up allowing her $4,000, and it finally
passed both houses, it's course being the same as
that of a bill, as 1t had three separate readings
and was signed by the presiding officers of both
bodies. State Auditor Rice, acting upon legal
advice, declined to issue bis warrant for the
amount, on the ground that a legislature could
not appropriate money by joint resolution.
Mrs. May accordingly instituted mandamus pro-
ceedings to compel the Auditor to
Issue his warrant, and the case was
tried before Judge Taylor. Attorney-general
Hord app caring for the defendant and ex-Gov-
ernor Hendricks for the plaintiff. Judge Taylor
yesterday gave a decision, everything
the plaintiffs demurrer to the defendants re-
turn. and giving Judgment against Mrs. May
for costs. and an appeal was taken to general
term. Judge Taylor's decision was very carefully
prepared, and as it contains many points OF
interest, 1t is given in full, as follows:
JUDGE TAYLoR's DECISION.
At the session Of 1883 the General Assembly
of the State of Indiana passed ajoint resolution
entitled. GA joint resolution providing for the
payment Of a claim in favor of Mrs. Ed win May,
and appropriating money therefor" which is in
these words:
"Be y resolved by the General Assembly of the
State Of IudianH:
"Seotion There is hereby allowed Mrs.
Sarah May, wife of the late Edwin May, for serv-
ices OF sad Edwin May as architect in the CON
struotion of the 5tate-hOuse, now in process of
erection, the sum of ten Thousand ($IO, O0O) dol
lars; aud said amount is hereby appropriated
out of any money in the treasury not otherwise
appropriated.
'5eo. 2.-The Auditor of State is hereby au-
thorlsed to draw his warrant on the state treas
ury for SAID amount" Acts of 1883. p. oil.
This resolution was signed by the presiding Of
hcer OF each House Of the General Assembly;
bat it was not approved by the Governor Of the
State-if such approval is necessary.
IL was, however, presented TO the Governor
Tor MS approved and signature, but he did not
approve and sign II. and he did not return 1t to
the Legislature with his objections, but oaused
1t to be flied in the Office of the Secretary of
State on the Sd day OF March, 1883, and il is
published among the laws of the state of the
session of 1883.
On she 9th day of June, 1888, the comnIain-
ant, Sarah May, at the Office OF the Auditor of
state, requested the defendant, Hon. JaRes Ii.
Rice, the Auditor OF State of the State of Indiana,
10 Issue to her u warrant upon the treasury of
the state OF Indiana for the sum of $4,000. the
amount allowed TO her aud Appropriated for its
payment by the said jeint resolution, but he
refused to comply with her request because of
the want OF authority so to do.
The constitution of che State of INDIANA pro-
vtdes tBa5 the Auditor OF State shall perform
such duties as may be enjuined by law. (Sec. 1.
= W ~ u 1901 u 9ty AZ II AuiOuE Lu6 uuIlbS
of the Auditor OF State to "draw warrants
on the Treasurer of State Cor all moneys directed
oy law 70 be paid out OF the treasury TO public
oHfoers, or for any other object whatsoever, as
the same may become payable" @ec. 5,6li, r.
8. 1881, par. 81
The Auditor OF State ia prohibited from draw
ing a warrant on the Treasurer of State except
"in conformity TO approations made by law"
and If he does draw a warrant on the Treasurer
OF state, except Gin conformity to apprOpria-
tions made by law" he subjects himself to fine
and Imprisonment. Secs. 2,052, 1853, r. s.
1881
IL is, therefore, highly proper for the Auditor
of State 10 be well advised as to his authority be-
Tore he draws a warrant on the Treasurer of
State, and, in questionable cases, to have the de-
cision OF the court of last resort In the State to
govern his action.
If the allowance and appropriation to the COM
plainant was "made by law" the duty Of the
defendant, as Auditor of State, is plain. He
ought TO have issued the warrant when re-
quested by the complainant; but If the allow
ance ana appropriatlon was not "made by law"
he did right In refusing to Issue the warrant
and the complainant Is not entitled to an order
commanding 5he A uditOr 90 issue it.
Was the allowance and appropri alton to the
complainant "made by iaw"f In other words,
can the joint resolution, under the constitution
of the State of Indiana, be held to he a law4
In the parliamentary sense a "blil" ia a form Of
statute submitted TO either house. which, after
passing both houses and receiving the royal as
sent becomes an act. An act VI parliament 10 a
law; and the collective body of the acts of parlia-
ment constitute the statutes or written law of
the realm. Enc. Brit, vol. 3, title, chill in Par
lament" Id. vol. l. title, "Aet of Parliament.
In the enactment of laws, by parliament, the
usual course of procedure ia by bill. In the up
per house a bill is introduced forth with, in the
Commons amotion must be put "that leave
be given to bring In a bill" Dc
caslOnally, instead of a bill the house proceeds
by way OF resolutions as in the ease Of the
"India bill, in 1858" (Fischel on English coust.
p. AGO, But the sanction of the sovereign is
necessary to constitute by enactment a law. In
our system of government the term bill ~ used
substantially in the same sense: 10 is an instru-
ment drawn or presented by a member or com
mittee to q Legislative body for its appreciation
and Enactment. After it has gone through both
houses and received the constitutional sanction
of the chief magistrate, where such appreciation
Is requisite, 1t becomes q law, (Meigs Rem, d.
237; l Bouv. Law. Die. p. 1888.
The constitutional sanction Of the chief mag
%istrate is his signature TO the bin. tSeo. /, art,
IA, cOnst. OF Ind r. 8. 1881, p. 25; sec. 7. art.
l, const. of u. s.; 1 X. 8. 1881, p. a..
There are some cases in when a bill NAV be-
come a law without the signature of the chief
magistrate; but it 10 not necessary to particular.
ly mention them here. Every bill. however,
to the chief magistrate of the United
States or the State for his approval.
and receive his signature, or, failing to receive
it, become a law only through the course pre-
seribed. The chief magistrate must have the
opportunity to approve ana sign the bill. This
Is settled by the sections OF the constitution
above quoted.
The constitution of the United States does not
prescribe the style of the laws: but, in addition
to the provision that every bill which has passed
the House of Representatives and the Senate.
snail, before it becomes a law, be presented to
the PRESIDENT or the United States, etc, IL re-
quires every order, resolution or vote, TO which
the concurrence of the Senate and House of
Representative may lie necessary Except "a
question of adtOurnmeutt, TO be presented TO the
President, and, before it takes effect, tn he an
proved by him; or, being disapprOved by him, to
be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and
House of Representatives, according TO the rules
ana limitations prescribed In the case of IL bill:
and 1t does not declare that no law
shall he enacted, except by bill. (5ec. Z, Art. 1,
Il. s. 1881. p. A.
While the constitution Of this State Of 1916 di-
Teeted that ''rhe style of all the laws of this State
shall he, Be IL enacted by the General Assembly
of the State OF Indiana 10 did not assert that no
law should be enacted except by bilI. and 1t con
tanned. substantially, the same provision rs to
resolutions, to whteh tho concurrence OF both
houses OF the General Assembly was necessary,
as does the constitution of the United States.
(5ee. Is. Art. 3, z. S. 1881, p. 40; Sec. %, Art. 4,
i'd. =. 48)