Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-03-13
TERRITORIAL FINANCES.
An Important Opinion by the Solicitor
General Respecting the CIV APP
preparation Bill.

Solicitor General E. L. Bartlett has
filed with the territorial treasurer the fol-
lowing rather important opinion respect.
Ing territorial financial matters:
Your letter of the 9TH instant, making
inquiry as to your authority to pay certain
territorial warrants drawn by the auditor
under the appropriation bill, approved
February 26, 1891, part of such warrants
being in payment of expenses incurred by
judges of the supreme court, and others
for compensation of assessors, both of such
items being included in said appropriation
bill under the head CT "deficit fund.- has
had my careful attention, and in reply
would give my opinion as follows: In re-
gard to the deficit fund, there Is an ap-
preparation for the present 42d fiscal year
for various purposes aggregating $62,09l,
which was not contemplated in the levy
of taxes for this year, which levy was
made in 1890. Under the finance act of
1889 there was no such fund as the deficit.
There is levied under the new act for the
AID and 44th fiscal years a tax OF 81 mills
on the dollar for territorial purposes; this
deficit fund appears to be new one tn
meet and pay which it was assumed and
must be presumed the levy of 61a mills
will be sufficient when raised. The only
provision for paying any portion of it (the
deficit fund) at once, is found in the pro-
visos attached to three items, i. g., the
salary fund, the pay of stenographer to
the militia committee and the payment of
expense for holding courts in Grant and
Santa Fe counties in February, 1891.
The special appropriation for Mr.. An
cheta's benefit was also by special act
directed to be paid out of any surplus on
hand at the end OF the 41st fiscal year.
With reference to the salary fund, the
sum of $11 900 was specifically and at once
transferred from any surplus in any fund
to the salary fund, which became at once
by the terms of the proviso increased by
that amount.
In reply to your first inquiry as to the
payment OF warrants drawn under the de-
ficit fund, for payment of judges, etc., the
provision is found on page 10 Of the act,
and is not for salary, but for expenses
specifically, and therefore it can not be
paid out Of the salary fund. Nor is there
any fund now exlsting containing money
out OF which the same can be paid.
In reply to your second inquiry with
reference to pay of assessors, by the same
act under head of deficit, at page II, there
is appropriated the sum of $4,000 for the
pay of assessors, due on assessments of
1SS9-1890. BY the act of 1889, found at
page 28S, session laws of that year, which
amended and became part of the finance
act of that session, it is pro-
vidsd that levy shall be
made in the 4Oth and 4lst
fiscal years OF 45-1OO of mill for the
of assessors, which when |
shall be paid into the territorial |
treasury to the credit of the salary fund,
under the head of compensation Of asses |
sors, and shall be used exclusively for
their fees and percentage.
Fees and percentage are not salaries
The fund you now have on hand, under
tho subhead, Compensation of Asses.
sors" can not be uscd except for the 42d |
fiscal year i. 9. 1891. But as the appro- |
priation of $11 900 before referred to was
transferred without reserve to the salary
fund, it is my opinion that any surplus Of
said sum, remaining after paying the
deficit in salaries proper, that is the terri
torial officers, can, and should be used
toward paying the assessors for deficits in |
their fees for 1889 and 1890, and that this |
should be paid in order of the precedence
Of presentation. But care should be taken |
that all deficits in salaries to salaried Of
ficers be first paid.
There are special provisions for clerks
Of courts under the new law, which take
them out of these provisions for the pay.
ment of deficit in their salary.
The fact that the sum of $11 900 was
directed specifically to be paid out Of any
surplus on hand at the end of the 4lst
fiscal year, that the pay OF the steno-
grapher was directed to be paid out of the
same fund and the expense of holding
court in Grant and Santa Fe counties was
ordered paid out of any surplus that might
.emain in the court fund for the 41st
iscal year, and the payment of the An
theta fund was ordered to be made from
my surplus fund remaining for that year,
shows that the legislature contemplated
he necessity of making a specific men
ion of the fact if it intended to divert the
surplus remaining on hand at the end of
he 41st fiscal year from reverting to the
und for the redemption of outstanding
as provided for in the finance
sct of 1889 at section 7; and the ommis-
ZION by it to provide for paying these
,ther deficits from outstanding surplus
must be construed to have been inten-
ional, Very respectfully,
EDWARD L. BARTLETT,