The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-07
CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE.
The Governor Vetoes the Bill for State
Court of Claims.

The Governor Vetoes the Bill for State
Court of Claims.
The bill enacted last week, providing that suits
may be brought in the Circuit or Supreme
Courts upon claims against the State was vetoed
by the Governor yesterday. Senator Campbell
of Hendricks was the author of the bill, and it
was regarded as one of the most important
measures that has been brought before the Gen.
eral Assembly, as the object of it was to relieve
the Legislature from the work of passing upon
the merits of all claims against the State. Bills
of this character have occupied much of
the time of the General Assembly,
and there are instances of long-protracted delays
in authorizing the payment of just claims There
is agenerally recognized necessity for some such
relief as was proposed in Senator Campbels
bill. la his veto message to the Legislature
Governor Gray says: at is not pleasant duty
for me to interpose objections to the legislative
wisdom of the General Assembly, and / would
not do so were I able to convince my Judgment
from any view that might take of this bill that
1t ought to become a law If the Legislature
upon reconsideration of this bill, shall deem it
a proper and necessary measure, the way is
open for its enactment into law without my
approval fully recognize the Importance of
establishing some tribunal for the adjustment of
claims against the State, and a law making pro-
visions for the same, with proper safeguards,
would meet my approval. Sec
. ton three of this act provides that upon
the final decree or Judgment of the
court finding any sum to be- due
any person or persons from the State, the Audi
tor of State is directed to draw his warrant upon
the Treasurer for the amount of the judgement
including interest in favor of the claimant. his
heirs or assigns which warrant shall be paid by
the Treasurer out of such funds in the Treasury
as the court may direct This is most extra
ordinary provision; as far as am advised, with
in the Union. The United States
Court of Claims at Washington passes
only upon the question of the claim, and DOS
sesses no authority to order the payment of the
judgment it may render. It's action is merely
advisory. With Congress is still left the author
ity 70 decide as TO the correctness of the claim.
or TO make appropriation to pay it, but this bill
makes the decree of the court final, and directs
the payment of the judgment rendered by the
court. IL is provided in article TO- section g. of
the Constitution, that no money shall be drawn
from the treasury bat in pursuance of appropria-
tons made by law. but this bill makes 1T the
duty of the Auditor of State to draw his warrant
on the Treasurer of State for the payment of the
Indictment. out of any funds in the treasury
SSs3G~ated by the court, and thereby raises
crave question as to the constitutionality of the
bill. 1t virtually repeals all the laws on the
statute books authorizing the State-honse CON-
mission. ana other provisional boards, TO de-
termine their contracts, adjust allowances and
expenses, by giving every person or persons
who may have claim against the State arts
ing out of contract with said boards of construc
ton or trustees of the various institutions
of the State. the right to ignore said boards
with whom the contract may have been made,
and sue in the Supreme Court for the claim.
The bill is Objectionable in another feature that
no legislative appropriations could be made with
any degree of certainty TO meet the wants of any
State institutions, because the same would be
subject TO the order of the court as well as the
proper board of any such institution. Que
judgment of the court might exhaust the appro-
pration and leave the institution in no better
condition than if no appropriation had been made.
Inc blli makes no provision for obtaining testi-
mony and procuring the attendance of witnesses.
IL LOADS the Supreme Court with additional
business, not purely judicial, and, to some ex-
tent, changes IT from judicial court of supreme
1udicatlre INTO court of original jurisdiction.
1or hne insestehtion OF claims, without regard
TO the amount IN controversy It does not
authorize the employment Of additional counsel
by the State, but leaves the state with NO
legal advice in its defense. except that
which the Attorney general may be able