Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-03-31
kINCAlD
Replies to State Claimants
Shows Why He Cannot Attempt to
Discriminate

las received numerous requests re-
Gently to audit and allow claims be-
fore money has been appropriated to
pay them. To a lengthy letter re-
ceived today he sent the following re-
Spouse:
SALEM, March 30. 1897.
My DEAR SIR:-Yours of March 20.
concerning the auditing of claims be-
fore the legislature has appropriated
money for their payment, has been
received The opinion Of the supreme
court in 1871 that claims cannot be
aalited in advance of an appropria-
ttpa was rendered by four Democrats.
J.. p. Prim, L. l.. Macarthur, B. F.
b nham, and A. j. Thayer, w. w.
U,ton, the only Republican, dlssented
u5)n. among other things, said:
1T is said this doctrine would in
vest the secretary with the legislative
power to control the disbursements
OF the public funds, and pledges the
public credit. The auditing Of a pub
lie account neither controls the dis
burSement or pledges the credit or
faith Of the state. An account can
not be paid simply because it is
audited, and the secretary cannot
audit an account unless the credit Of
the state is already pledged by some
provision Of law previously made,
pledging the faith Of the state that
the claimant shall be paid. The sec
retary's function is to decide whether
the faith iof the state has been so
pledged by previous legislation
lit his been pledged, to ascertain
aud certify to what extent. The
claim certified by him is not to be
paid solely because Of his certificate
or warrants, nor until the legislature
SHALL, in addition to such previous
pledges, pass an act of appropriation
in fulillment Of the pledge. If the
secretary commits a fraud or exceeds
his Jurisdiction his action is open to
investigation before the judicial tri-
bunalS of the state, as are those OF a
minor officer. He pledges nothing;
he simply decides matters within his
Jurisdiction and the lawmaking
power that pledges the faith Of the
state.
81 anf therefore compelled to dissent
from so much Of what l understand
to be the opinion of the majority of
the court, as holds that the secretary
can audit public accounts only when
there is an unexpended appropriation
applicable to the payment of the par
ticular claim presented. l am Of the
opinion that it is the duty of the sec
rotary of state to audit public accounts
in every case where the law has clearly
provided that the claimants shall be
paid by the state; and if the claim is
allowed, to draw his warsant for the
amount due"
You will preceiYe that if we take
this dissenting opinion as the true
Interpretation OF the constitution and
laws, las against the opinion of four
other judges, and should have it
adopted by the supreme court now or
a similar opinion rendered, there
would be no authority to audit claims
in advance of any appropriation
other than those specifically author
lied by law, which would not include
one-fourth of the claims which will
be filed for services that are absolutely
necessary and for which duplicate
vouchers or certificates, not audited,
will be issued. There would then be
three classes Of claims, one class such
as fixed salaries and other specific SER
vices provided by law, which could De
audited-and another class-not fixed
by law, but necessary to carry on
business for which appropriations
have been made in the past and no
doubt will be made in the future,
which could not be audited. And a
third class, such as expences Of con-
veying %convicts, etc, for which moth
ing is to be issued but (which are to
be held up for such action as the leg