The record-union., 1895-03-29

mated sufficiently; nor need the money
be in the treasury at the time Of the order
of appropriation, as most appropriations
are made in anticipation of the receipt of
State revenues. But, it says, to say that
whoever kills a coyote shall have So out
of the general fund of the State Treasury
is not sufficient. because the amount of
money to be devoted to such payments is
not specified-that there is no specific ap-
preparation to be exhausted, unless it is
held that the whole general fund is set
aside as a specific appropriation to the
end in view, and that would be absurd.
A promise to make an appropriation is
not an appropriation, says the court. A
promise by Government to pay money is
not an appropriation. To permit the dis
bursement of an indefinite amount is to
introduce an element of uncertainty into
calculations that would embarrass the
legislative and other departments in CIV
the levying of taxes.
But in the case of Grand Lodge VS..
Markham q02 Cal. Rep, says the court.
! the Acts construed by the appellate
| court, according to the principles above
! announced, were "For the support of
! indigents under Article w., Section % of
| consideration in Grand Lodge VS.. Mark
ham, the Constitution itself provides the
manner Of the making of the appropria-
ton, and the Act conforming to the man
ner prescribed has the Constitution of the
| State for its direct authority. In San
Francisco VS.. Dunn (69 Cal. 73) it was
| held that no legislative action was re-
! quired to give force to the constitutional
provision. and that upon the happening
of the contingency the language of the
! Constitution, &c pTOpTlO UigOre, acted as
an appropriation and qualities the gen.
eral constitutional inhibition. These
cases, therefore, are not in point upon the
present question"
Turning to the case of Grand Lodge VS..
! Markham we find that minor question
! alone was treated, ana its value now is
only in the fact that it's attorneys never
thought of doubling the sufficiency of
the Orphans Aid Act as an appropriation
bill.
When, however. we come to the case
| of San Francisco VS.. Dunn, the whole
! question is cleared up, and the reasoning
pursued thus far in this article is con-
! frmed. AS that case is cited in the
matter is set at rest. In 1888 the Legis-
lature, by an Act copied in all essential
parts literally from the Orphans Aid Act
| of 1880, provided tor aid to aged indigents
III institutions conducted by cities and
counties. The aid is given in the same
manner as is that to orphans (and re-
fers TO the Orphans Act and under the
same section of the same article of the
Constitution. namely: Article ", Section
%. The court says in San Francisco vs.
Dunn, that there are three provisos in
the constitutional article, that the first
two apply to orphans and the third 10
aged indigents; that the Act of 1888 hav-
| ing provided the appropriation for these
! aged persons, the third proviso of the
| Constitution referred to became self-ex-
! ecuting and no further legislative action
was necessary" The court adds: This
provso is portion of the section that
declares that no money shall be drawn
from the State Treasury but in conse-
quence of an appropriation made by law.
That declaration acts of itself as an ap-
preparation upon the other apDropria-
tion the Act of 1888 giving indigents SIO0
a year being made"
So the case of the indigents being pre-
cisely the case of the orphans, the Su-
preme Court has clearly settled it that
there is no other appropriation Act nee
essary. other than that of March, 1850. 1t
is therefore indisputable that the coyote
case does not affect the case of appropria-
tions for orphans; that the custom of the
past fourteen years in paying these
orphan claims has been right and law
ful custom; that the Act of 1850 is an Act
OF appropriation under the specific pro-
! viso of the Constitution, while the Act
! giving coyote bounties was not within
the constitutional proviso or specific di-