The Middleburgh post. [volume] (Middleburgh, Snyder Co., Pa.) 1883-1916, 1897-10-07

that the legislature might constutionally
do II In the form they did. by an item
In the general appropriation bill for the
judicial department"
The learned justice took the broad
ground that under the constitutional r.-
quirement the legislature must be the
exclusive judge of the form In which its
enactments shall be put. and that II 1t
chooses 70 make an Office by providing
compensation in the general appropria-
tton act 1t has the power to do so. II.
then. the legislature has the power to
provide additional employees in the judi
c'Gry department OF the state govern
ment ny an item in the general appro-
prIdt'on bill X seems TO me there Is much
greater force and reason in the position
THAI II can provide for the compensation
OF extra employees. whose appointments
are made necessary to transact its own
business. IL viii certainly not be con-
tended that the legislature has greater
power and control over the employees of
the judiciary department than it has over
Its own. In stating the rule laid down
In the above case the supreme court says
that in such cases much weight must be
given to the legislative understanding
and practice during long term of years.
In this connection | beg to remind you
that the rule and custom followed in the
appointment OF the extra employees at the
last session of the Legislature has the
sanction of more than 20 years of legisla-
tive practice and precedent.
Then again, recall that under the gen.
erai appropriation act of 1895, passed dur
ing the present administration, and ap-
proved after painstaking and careful con-
sideration by yourself and other members
or the cabinet contains items providing
Tor the compensation of the extra en-
ployes just as the act of 1897 did The act
OF 1898, although It contained compensa-
tlon for extra employees, received the ap-
proVal OF the present executive. / do not
state this for the purpose of criticising
MS act In so doing. My opinion is that
there was no improperly in approving II
thcn ana that there is none in doing the
same thing In 1897. | may be mt fault, but
fall TO comprehend how that can be NOR
ally and constitutionally wrong in 1897
which is legally right in 1895.
ON this point | would do an injustice to
myself II | failed to remind you that
the general appropriation act of 1897 con-
tains compensation for the extra en-
pioyes, approved at the beginning of the
session BY the governor and members of
slate committees. In other words. the
governor and yourself have seen no i'm
pfoprlcty III approving the compensation
Tor these extra employees to the amount
OF about $4,000. who were on the list
without authority of law, according to
your own position, yet you do not hcsi-
tate TO cloud my official integrity and re-
move me from Office because L. in small
way, helped these very men to receive
advances on their salaries while they
were performing the duties of the posi-.
tions TO which they were appointed.
The general appropriation act of 1897
was approved with fun knowledge of the
lacl by the governor and yourself that
IL contained compensation for "a large
number OF extra employees. The approl al
or the appropriation for these extra en-
ployes Is as constutionally wrong, If
wrong at all, as the approval of any COM
pehshtlon Tor extra services alleged to be
without authority of law There was no !
authority of law for the extra employees
approved by the governor except the
items in the general appropriation act
afterwards passed. You will also recall |
ehe fact that the general appropriation |
ACT OF 1897 contains an item of more than |
sfWv Tor the compensation of extra en- |
pioyes during the session of 1895. This |
item was Intentionally overlooked in 1895 |
ana the mistake was corrected in 1897. |
Ihis was money paid without any pre- |
vious authority of law
In view of the authority of the supreme |
court above cited, in the light of legisla- |
1--WE precedent during a period of more |
.han ~ years. with knowledge of the |
[act that the present administration ap- |
proved items for the compensation of |
extra employees In the general appropria-
Lioh act OF 1895, and having in mind that
me governor approved the compensation
'or extra employees in 1897 to the amount
d about $4,000, | respectfully submit that
he position ! assume in this controversy
$ supported by precedent and authority.
In conclusion permit me to say that |
nave but oEs purpose in the recital of
hese Hs;'s, and that is to inform yourself
'hu the public of the transaction from
,eginning 10 end.
Very respectfully yours.
JOHN i. ELKIN.