The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-22

1916, it had the force and authority OF a law, it
does not necessarily follow that it has or eau
have such force or effect under the present con
stitution of this State. Section l OF article 4.
above quoted, is an express direction how every
law shall be styled, and a positive ana unquali-
Ned declaration that no law shall he enacted but
by bill.
The rule that when a thing is directed to be
done in a particular manner, and in no other
manner, 1t must be so done, (COoiey's Const.
Linn, p. 35), applies here with irresistible force.
II thus provision can ne called ana treated as
simply directory, there is scarce a single REQUIRE
ment OF the constitution that may not he held to
be purely directory. tSedgwick on stat. and
Const. Con, p. 377D
Inc distinction between directory and impera
tive statutes is this: A clause is directory when
the provisions contain mere matter of direction
and nothing more; but not so where they are fol
lowed by such words as are used here; And no
law shall be enacted except by bill" CPotter's
DWarris on stat, p. 22l; 2 A. & E., p 94)
frequent place in the constitution of this State,
nut 1t Is quite evident that they are not used
IN the same sense, and that a different function
Is assigned TO each. (Seetlens l, 10 and l6-2o'
article A; sections l, 4, II, article 3; aud section
Z article 8; r. s. 1881, PIP. IS. 10, 20, 81, %
and 25.) | concur with the view Of Governor
Baker In his letter of Nov. 10, 1868, to Major
.. M. Wilson. Wilson's Dig. Parlm. Law, o..
3l4l He says chat the requirement that
every bill. when " shall have been passed 10y
both houses, must he submitted to the Governor
Tor his action, has no application to "A joint reso-
luton; and that such a resolution should never
De submitted to the Governor for his action;
that the Governors approval or veto OF a JOINT
resolution would be extra constitutional. in
operative anu vo1d; that the removal of a State
officer from his Office must he either by I'M
peaohment or by joint resolution; article g.,
section Z; that every power which the General
Assembly can exercise by Joint resolution
Except the single one of removing a
state otticerl may as ehectually, though
not always as appropriately, be per
office and scope of Il JOINT resolution, as COM
pared with a bill, is quite limited, ana such a
resolution, except it the removal of a State OIL
Ger, is only proper when the General Assembly
seeks merely TO express an opinion, give advice
or counsel, or TO present a petition, request. re-
monstrance or protest 10 some other body, OIL
Ger Ur tribunal"
In my iudgnent this Joint resolution Is not a
law, IN the constitutional sense of the term: and
as the constitution (sec. 3, art. 10l declares that
"no money shall be- drawn from the treasury
but in pursuance OF appropriations maze by
law" and the Auditor of STATE is prohibited from
drawing a warrant on the Treasurer of State,
except In conformity to appropriations so made,
the Auditor of State was justified in refusing to
Issue the warrant TO the complainant, and this
proceeding against him must fail.
= nave carefully examined the case OF
Bailey vs.. the State t16 Ind, 46l. where the
court, with apparent hesitation and without
considering the plain difference between the
provisions of the constitution OF 1915 and our
present constitution held a joint resolution, in
the force OF n law; but | do not think it applicable
to this question, and doubt II it should be con-
sidered or held as authority, except in that par
ticular case.
do not think this case fully within the class
of subjects where either legislative or official
length OF time, will outweigh and compel a dis.
regard OF the plain provisions OF the c%onstitu-
a0n; or. IN other words, sanction q usage which
Is in direct conflict with Its plain provisions.