The record-union., 1894-05-23
INGRAM AND HIS COYOTE CLAIMS.
Judge CatIin Holds That the State
Must Pay Them.
Such Claims Were Provided for by
Law. and Cannot be Regarded
as Gifts.


draw warrants in his favor for certain
sums alleged to be due him under tne
Act fixing a bounty on coyote scalps.
He finds for the plaintiff, and says IN
HIS DECISION:
Four objections were urged against the
writ. ., roo,
entitled "An Act fixing bounty on coy
ote scalps," is unconstitutional.
Second--That the title of the Act does |
not sufficiently express its objects.
Third-That the Act does not contain |
an appropriation.
Fourth-That the claim of petitioner !
was not presented to the State Board OF
Examiners.
1t is urged in behalf of the Controller |
that the Act of 1891 is a violation Of Sec |
ton 81 of Article ". of the Constitution, |
which says the Legislature shall not |
shave power to make any gift OF any /
public money or thing of value to any IN
diyiduaI. municipal or other corporation |
whatever"
At the hearing the question whether
the bounty provided bv this Act was in
its essential characteristics gift or pay
ment for a service was elaborately ar
gued and illustrated by example and by
reference to legislative acts. The 80
offered by the Act for the killing coy
ote seems to me to be more in the nature
of payment for service TO be performed
than n gift.
gift does not impart valuable con-
sideration, and, in its ordinary accepta-
ton, is understood to be donation by
one party to another where other tnan
legal or moral obligation is the moving
cause.
There is an actual service performed,
which is solicited and obtained by the
promise to pay therefor in this case.
Whether the service Is OF much or little
value to the State, or whether the reward
or compensation is more or less liberal
than it should be, is a question OF legls-
lative cognizance.
1 conclude that the Act cannot be con-
demned for the reasons assigned under
the first objection mentioned.
The title contains words which en-
brace the whole Act that is to say, the
purpose of paying a certain sum for
certain service. There is no subject in
the body of the Act foreign to the title.
In other words, there is but one sub
ject." The constitutional requisition that
''every Act shall embrace but one sub
iect, which subject shall be expressed in
its title" is quite fully complied with. 1t
cannot be said that the appropriation for
the payment of the bounty fixed is OF
different subject matter.
Does the Act in substance contain an
appropriation 1t think it does. 1t spe
warrant upon the general fund III the
Treasury for the specific amount due the
person who presents to him the proper
certificate showing the amount he is en-
titled to.
The Act does not in terms say, There
is hereby appropriated, TO be paid out OF
the general fund, the sum of 50 for each
Scalp,o ETC., but it uses words having the
same meaning. 1t has often been held
that these formal words are not necessary
when the Act clearly, as IN this case,
designates the fund and specifies the sum
TO be paid. (Proll VS.. Dunn, 50 Cal. 22O;
Humbert VS.. Dunn, "a Cal. 81; Ireland
VS.. Colgan, So Cal. 4l5.
Apparently the most serious objection
against the validity of the appropriation
is the uncertainty of the aggregate amount
which may be drawn under it. This un-
certainty, however, prevails in many
Acts which for that reason have not been
condemned. The Act may be considered
as making distinct appropriation of So
Tor each scalp. Prudent legislation might
have suggested limit to the mum ber;
and yet the circumstances, which now
make it appear that wise discretion
would have provided such limit, might
not then have been within the forecast of
the legislative mind.
This objection was made in the case of
the People VS.. Miner (46 III. 3S4). and
Chief Justice Breese made the following
observations in regard to it.:
1t is further insisted by the Attorney
General that unless some certain amount
be appropriated, and to be drawn from
the treasury, it would be impossible to
know at the time of the enactment what
the State tax would be in the specified
township for the ensuing five years.
This is a strong argument
against the policy of such legislation, but
it leaves the power untouched. The
nf NAV Aa hnt dc,in
the past, it is not likely TO be in this par
ticuiar. We again repeat, it is unwise,
unsafe and very loose legislation, bat we
are unable to say IL is in violation of the
CONSTITUTIONS
The Act of 1891 establishes an Auditing
Board, to which all claims must be sub
mitted with the evidence in support of
the claim. The Board of Supervisors of
the county In which the coyote is killed is
made such Auditing Board; and it is
manifest that such board is much better
fitted for the performance of the duty
than the State Board OF Examiners, for
many reasons which might be assigned,
and especially for the one named in the
Act that the scalp must be presented as a
part of the proof within three months
after it is taken. The Act further pro-
vides that, after the Board OF Supervisors
shall have finally acted upon the claim,
the scalp shall be destroyed by fire. 1t
must be presumed, ii it did not appear
that the scalp was presented in due time,
or that the claim for any other reason
was not good and valid under the law,
that it would be rejected, and that would
be the end of it. What possible office
then could the State Board of Examiners
have TO perform in the examination of
the claim? None but to approve it.
Nothing Tor it to act upon could, under
the law, reach the board except the naked
certificate Of the Board of Supervisors.
certified by its clerk, showing the num-
Der of scalps deposited by such person
and the sum due him at the rate of So fer
each scalp" And the genuineness OF this
certificate, which is required to be pre-
sented to the Controller as his voucher
for drawing the warrant on the Treasurer.
could as well be determined by the Con-
troller as by the Board of Examiners
/ am OF the opinion that the Act under
consideration has the necessary effect to
Withdraw the claims therein provided for
from the supervision of the State Board of
Examiners.
1t follows from the above views that it
is the duty of the Controller TO draw the
warrant demanded by the petitioner,
Let the writ issue as prayed for.
WILL BE APPEALED.
Assistant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LAWSON
said yesterday that the State would an
peal the case TO the Supreme Court