Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1889-08-31
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
The state of Nevada Ex Rel. County
of Lyon, RelatOr, VS.. j. r. RAaliOck,
state Controller. Respondent.
(BY BELKNAP ~

state Controller. Respondent
(BY BELKNAP J.)
At the session of the Legislature of 1850
a law was enacted requiring special election
to be held upon the 18th day of February of
that year for the purpose of submitting TO the
people certain proposed amendments to the
Constitution of the State. Stats 1850, p. Ia.
Under the general laws pertaining to cleo
tions the counties respectively were charged
Bile with the expense, and in order to reimburse
them the sum of $4,000 of the unappropr-
ated moneys in the State Treasury was set
apart by law approved by the Governor,
January %, 1889. Stats. 1889, P. Fl.
The second section of the law is as follows:
| ssSec. z. The Boards of County Commits
sioners in the respective counties in this State
shall, Immediately after ascertaining the ex.
penses of said election, certify the same to
the State Controller, who shall upon the re.
ceipt of said certificate draw his warrant up
on the State Treasurer in favor of the
Chairman of each Board of County Commits
sioners for the amount SO certified as being
the expenses of said special election IN each
| county"
Under the provisions Of this section, the
Board of County Commissioners of Lyon
county certified that the expenses of the
county amounted to the sum Of $I,o32 IS,
and demanded of the Controller his warrant
therefor. The demand was refused, and
thereupon relator commenced this proceed.
ing by mandamus to compel the issuance of
the warrant.
The petition alleges, among other things,
that the State Board of Examiners audited
the claim of the county for the sum of SITS 20
and that respondent has rendered his war
rant upon the State Treasury for this amount.
The question is whether the Legislature
can require the Controller to draw his war
rant for the amount ascertained to be due by
the Board Of County Commissioners, or
whether the State Board of Examiners, un-
der the provisions of the Constitution, should
have audited the claim.
The Constitution, Article 5, Section II,
provides: 1.-THE Governor, Secretary Of
State and Attorney General shall constitute
Board of State Prison Commissioners,
which Board shall have such supervision of
all matters connected with the State Prison
as may be provided by law. They shall also
constitute Board of Examiners, with power
to examlue all claims against the State Tex
cept salaries and compensation of officers
fixed by law, and perform such other duties
as may be prescribed by law. And no claim
against the State Except salaries or compen-
saton of officers fixed by law shall be passed
upon by the Legislature without having been
considered and acted upon by said Board Of
Examiners"
The statutes relating to the enforcement of
claims against the State provide that claim
for which an appropriation has been made,
but of which the amount has not been liqui
dated, may be presented to the Board OF Ex-
aminers. who shall act in the matter, either
by rejecting it or allowing it, in whole or in
part. (Gen. Stat, Sec. 1862
The duty is also imposed upon the Board
to examine all claims presented by petition,
for which no appropriation has been made,
sand which require to be acted upon by the
Legislature, and to take all evidence in re
gard to the same which may be offered by
the claimant or deemed proper by the Board.
The evidence shall be reduced to writing,
and together with the petitions shall be trans
mitted to the Legislature at the first day Of
its next session, together with the opinions
of the Board in reference to the merits Of the
same" (Sec. 1861
At each biennial session of the Legislature
appropriations are made for the support of
the government for the two years then cur
rent. From the nature of the case it is i'm
details of expenditure or to enumerate the
specific disbursements 10 be made. Appro-
priations are made under separate heads. and
expenditures chargeable thereto are consid-
cred and passed upon by the Board of Ex-
amners, in conformity with the requirements
of the Constitution that they "shall examine
all claims against the State" Claims for
which no appropriation has been made must
be acted upon by the Board before submission
to the Legislature, in order that its members
may have the advantage of the information
which the members of the Board would nat
urally acquire from the nature of their duties.
These provisions of the statutes present a
practical and reasonable exposition of the
provisions of the Constitution, and place the
authority to audit unliquidated claims with
the Board created for that purpose by the
Constitution.
Against the action of respondent it is said
that the general Legislation above referred to
has been repealed by the statute Of January
23, 1880, so far as 1t interferes with the audit.
ing of the claim under consideration. Con-
cede this, for the purposes OF the case, yet
the provisions of the paramount law remain,
comforting authority upon the Board OF Ex-
aminers to examine all claims against the
State.
Again, it is said that the constitutional re.
quirement concerning the auditing Of claims
by the Board Of Examiners relates only to
such claims as must be submitted to the
Board before legislative action should be TAX
en- thereon. Claims requiring action by the
Board of Examiners as pre- requisite to leg
islation are comparatively few in number
and action by the Legislature upon such
claims is generally final without further SUBJ
mission to the Board. If claim of this
character is allowed by the Legislature, the
form Of the law is generally such as to ere.
ate liquidated demand for which warrant
upon the Treasury is issued.
The most numerous and important claims
against the State arise from the contingent
expenses incurred in support of the Govern
| ment and which must be met as they arise.
| In view of the manifest purpose of the Con-
stitution to protect the Treasury by requiring
the Board of Examiners TO adjust all claims,