The San Francisco call., 1895-08-02
SALARIES HELD BACK.
Claims Two Appointments
Have Been Made Without
Authority.
AN APPEAL TO FITZGERALD.
The Outcome Eagerly Awaited by
Every Politician in the
Capital City.

OA0hAMEN1O, CAL.I aug. IL mere
is difference of opinion between State
Controller Colgan and the State Board of
Examiners over certain appointments
which the latter have made, and every
politician in the capital city is eagerly
awaiting the outcome.
The controversy arises over the refusal
of the Controller to pay sum OF money to
Thomas A. Lewis, who was recently APP
pointed expert to the Board of Examiners.
The Controller holds that there is no stat
utory provision for any such an office,
hence the refusal. In relation to the Lewis
matter Mr.. Colgan has sent the following
letter to the Attorney General, but as yet
has received no reply:
The Board of Examiners have approved q
claim for $54 As in favor of Thomas A. Lewis,
as expert to said board, for travelling expenses
from July to 10 inclusive. 1 am not aware
of any statute creating the Office of expert to
the Board of Examiners, nor OF any law au-
thorizing the appointment or employment of
such an officer, and, If his employment is not
warranted by law, I fail TO see wherein or
whereby the payment OF his travelling expenses
is warranted.
am aware that in the general appropriation
act of 1895 Statutes 1885, page 2S1) provision
is made for the salary OF an expert TO the Board
OF Examiners and for his travelling eXpen ses,
but am also aware and the records OF the last
Legislature will show that the bilrcreating the
Office of expert, authorizing his employment
and fixing his salary, failed of passage.
The items mentioned above were inserted in
the general appropriation act in anticipation
of the creation of the Office, but from the later
action OF the Legislature it was the evident
intention that the Office should not be created.
The question arises in my mind Does the
simple act of an appropriation in the general
appropriation act carry with it the creation of
an Office, the authority to appoint such officer,
and warrant the expenditure OF the money
without other authority of law? VIII you
kindly give me your opinion in this matter
and oblige. Very truly, yours,
E. P. CoLGAE, Controller.
The following day Mr.. Colgan sent an
other letter to Mr.. Fitzgerald, in which he
wrote:
1 am in receipt of notice from the secretary
of the Board of Examiners that on the 18th
inst. the board appointed Fred A. Severy print
ing expert under section $40, Political Code.
I am of the opinion that this Office has been
abolished, and the section referred to repealed,
if not in terms, at least in effect
The Office of State Printer was first created by
an act approved January s, 1850 Statutes
1850, page 45). This act was repealed in 1852
Statutes 1852, page 113). The office was again
created by al act approved May 1, 1854
Statutes 1854, page 33}. This act provided for
thapayment of the State Printer by piece-work
and fixed the rates at which the work was to be
paid for (section 12) and it was the duty of
the printing expert to examine into the work
done and the claims presented by the State
Printer.
On March 26, 1872 Statutes 1912, page
554), an act was approved abolishing the Office
OF State Printer, and establishing the State
Printing Office. and creating the Office OF Su-
perintendent of State Printing. This act went
into effect the first Monday in July, 1875, and
since that time the Superintendent of State
Printing has had entire charge and supervision
of the State printing.
With the retirement of the State Printer and
the old system of piece-work the duties of the
printing expert ceased and his services were
no longer required, and it is quite clear to my
mind that the act above referred to practically
disposed of this officer, if it did not in terms
repeal the section of the code providing for his
appointment. No appropriation has been
made for the salary of this Office since March
80, 1874, nor 1 find that since the act of
March 26, 1872 went into effect has any ap-
pointment to the Office been made. VIII you
kindly give me your views in writing on the
subject?
The general impression here seems to be
that Mr.. Fitzgerald will stand pat in the
appointments, as he probably voted to
make them after careful consideration,
and the question is, What will Mr.. Colgan
do? The Controller has carefully exam
ined the law, and is convinced that the
appointments are illegal. Feeling as he
does, he viii probably continue to refuse
to draw the warrants, and the matter will
be taken before the Supreme Court