The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1897-03-06
KINCAID TAKES A HAND.

The action of Secretary of State
Kincaid in refusing to assume the re-
sponsibilities imposed upon him
through the failure of the legislature
to pass the appropriation bill is the
most potent faction in bringing about
an organization of the house. The
secretary refuses to issue any war;
rants for. any state expenses, except
those controlled by special laws, and
thus makes plain that without an ap-
preparation bill being passed all taxes
will be locked up in the state treas
urer's Office for two years, while the
state will be run on the credit system,
and very slim creditat that. Mr.. Kin
caid has prepared statement justify
ing his position, from which the follow
ing extracts are taken:
"The present legislature has appro
priated no money to pay the current
expenses of running the state govern
ment for the biennial term. commence
ing January !, 1897, and ending
December 81, 1898. The secretary ,of
state, H. R. Kincaid, has decided that
he can issue no warrants on the state
treasurer for the payment of the claims
of any of the members of the legisla-
ture for their salary and mileage, for
the claims of other employees of the
legislature for services rendered; for
the claims of merchants and other per-
sons for supplies furnished for the
legislature; for the claims of officers
and employees of the different state in
stitutions for salaries; for the claims of
merchants and others for supplies furn-
ished to such institution, except
where there is a statute making an
nual or biennial appropriation for the
particular purpose covered by the
claim. In his decision the secretary
of state follows the decision of the
supreme court of Oregon. in the case
of Brown vs.. Fleishner, decided in
1871, wherein the secretary of state,
Samuel E. May, had issued warrants
on the state treasury to pay claims for
which no appropriation had been made
by the legislature. In this case JUS
tice Thayer said:
"The secretary of state, like. every
other officer of the state government,
possesses no substantive powers, ex-
cept such as are enumerated in the con-
stitution, and statutes. His authority
to audit accounts and draw warrants
upon the treasury depends upon tine
condition that an appropriation has
been made by The legislative assembly
for their payment"
ssThe court, after citing the law de-
fihing the powers and duties of the
state treasurer and secretary of state,
adds: These guards and checks upon
the transactions of public officers were
wisely made, and each officer should be
required to keep within the scope of
his authority, not only in order to Sc
cure the interests of the public, but
also to protect the rights of the indi-
-yidual citizens. AS there were no ap-
preparations made for the payment of
the warrants in question, the secretary
of state had no right to draw the same,
and the state treasurer violated no
official duty in refusing to pay Them
ssThe secretary of state is also of the
opinion that section 4, article 9, of the
constitution of this state, by implica-
,tion, would sustain him in the decision
he has made not to draw warrants on
the state treasurer only where specific
appropriations have been made. This
section says that mo money shall be
drawn from the treasury but in pur-
suance of appropriations made by law
THAT there have been no appropria-
t{ons nv lawfor the current and other
expenses OF the biennial period, COM