The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-07-27
WON'T PAY WARRANT
TREASURER WORTH REFUSES
TO PAY THE AUDITORS $500
WARRANT FOR FARMERS
INSTITUTES.
ATTORNEY GENERAL SUSTAIHS HIM

President Green of the Agricultural
Board is Quoted as SaYisg, the In
stitutes VIII be Held Whether the
Treasurer Pays the Money or Note
The Treasurer Says the Act Does not
say That the $500 Appropriated
Must Come out of the General Fund
but out of the Agricultural Fund land
Says the Latter, by Federal Decision,
Is Unavailable for Institutes.
In yesterdays issue of an afternoon
contemporary, Mr. W. T. Green, presi-
dent of the Board Of Agriculture, who
was in Raleigh two days ago, is made to
say that the Farmers Institutes "would
be held no matter whether these funds
were obtained or not"
"These funds" referred to an appro-
priation of $500 made by the legislature
of 1898 for the purpose stated. And
this was the subject of story touch
ing this matter printed in yesterdays
NEWS AND OBSERVER. In that story it
was remarked that after putting their
heads together Commissioner Patterson
and President Green applied to Treasurer
Worth for the.$500, in fact the applica-
ton went so far as to take the form of
warrant from the Auditor, but, to make
it short, the Treasurer refused TO pay the
money asked for.
The question as to the status of the
Treasurer with reference to warrant
presented from the Auditors Office need
not be discussed just now or here. The
matter that interests the farmers is will
they get the $500, and have the insti-
tutes, and, if not, why not.
The answer made may be given plainly:
the Treasurer does not intend to pay the
money, and if he did intend so to do, he
would only pay $3.50, at time as the
appropriation of $500 is biennial one;
at least, that is what he said yesterday
to reporter of the NEWS AND OBSERVER.
Mr.. Worth, on being seen yesterday,
was asked moreover what was his ground
of action, or rather inaction. He said he
had embodied his reasons in letter
to Commissioner Patterson, which letter,
Mr.. Patterson said he preferred not
giving out for publication. But, return
ing to Mr.. Worth, the reporter was
shown a press copy of the letter which,
after formal opening, continued as
follows:
1.-THE Attorney General says there are
but two funds from which the money
could be paid, the one the general fund
in the State Treasury, the other, that in
your hands as treasurer Of the .Agricul-
tural Department.
my opinion is that the appropriation
ought to be paid out Of the latter fund.
1.-THE whole act taken together plainly in
dictates that this fund and this fund
alone is to be devoted to the payment of
the expenses of the department of agri-
culture and geology. > When
ever any money is to be paid out Of the
general fund in the treasury by virtue of
chapter 1, volume II, of the Code, it is
expressly stated, as for instance in sec
ton 2,215e There is no such expression
with reference to this appropriation.
The implication is that the Legislature
did not intend it to be paid out of the
general fund; otherwise it would have
expressed that intention.
The other question in your letter Is
whether the appropriation is annual or
bi-annual There is nothing in the sec
ton to indicate that it is annual. The
amending section and the section to be
amended (both of which will be eX
planned presently should be read to-
gether. The latter section provides that
the institutes must be held in every
county at least once in two years.
This fixes the number of and the time in
which the institutes must be held. Read
ing the two sections together, conclude
that inasmuch as two years is the period
within which the Institutes must be held,
it is also the period within which the ap
preparation must be paid. It is, there
fore, biennial and should be paid once
every two years.
The section TO be amended" referred
to above is section 5, chapter 400, Laws
of 1887, which provides for the insti-
tutes, the money to be taken out of the
agricultural fund, which last two words
raise the point at issue.
By reason of the Federal decision for,
bidding the use of this fund for the hold
ing of institutes, the Legislature Of 1898
passed an amendment to the above sec
ton providing:
"That the expenses Of holding said in
stitutes shall not exceed $500, which is
hereby appropriated for the purpose, to
be expended at the discretion OF the
Board Of Agriculture.
To eliminate from the story the ques-
ton whether or not the Treasurer is right
in saying that he would not pay but
$3.50 at time, it would seem that he is
in error from the opinion above quoted
of the Attorney General who says that
the appropriation should be paid "once"
every two years.
But the bulk of the question is whether
the Treasurer should pay the money at
all, and his refusal to do so is based
upon the opinion as given above.
The Treasurer said yesterday that had
the warrant from the Auditors office
been drawn upon the Agricultural fund
for $3.50, he would have had no hesita-
ton in paying it, but, in that case, the
Federal decision would soon have arisen
in evidence.
Moreover, aside from the discussion of