Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-08-10

such fund only; and he shall pay no
fund out of the treasury except in
pursuance of law authorizing the pay
ment thereof; but when any claim or
account is authorized by law TO be
paid out of a general or contingent
appropriation, the same shall be paid
by the treasurer upon the warrant Of
the secretary of state.
Third-To pay all warrants on the
treasurer in the order in which they
are presented, out of the appropriate
fund: If there are no such funds in
treasury, then he shall endorse on
on such warrants mot paid for want
of funds together with the date, and
all warrants so endorsed shall draw
legal interest from aud after such en-
dorsement."
There is some confusion in number
ing the sections of the original act,
but the sections referred to are desig
mated in Hill's Annotated Laws Lf
Oregon as "a 22O8, 2209, 2217 and 2219.
Che laintiff contends, first, that
the law fixing the amount OF his sal
airy and providing for the manner of
its payment constitutes an approprla'
tion of funds out of the
treasury with which to meet
the installments as they become
due: and, second, that the secretary is
required to audit his claim therefor
and draw warrant for the amount
found due even though it be deter.
mined that there has been no appro-
priation made to meet it. The prin-
ciple involved in the declaration of
the fundamental law that mo money
shall be drawn from the treasury but
in the pursuance of appropriations
made by law" had its origin with the
British parliament. 1t had, Lrior to
the time of Charles the second, occa-
sionally and at long intervals, eXer-
cised the right of appropriating sup
plies to particular purposes as the
needs of the government demanded,
but during the regin Of that monarch
| il employed the authority generally
although perhaps not in every in
stance. 1t was not, however, until
after the revolution of 1858 that the
right and authority became firmly
established. The principle, as then
aud since understood, is that sup
plies granted by parliament are
only to be expected for par
ticular objects specified by
ITSELF" Taswell- English
Con. History, 620-621. The abuse
which the establishment of the prin
ciple was designed to correct was the
exercise of official discretion in paying
out and disbursing the public funds,
and its purpose was to endow the leg
islative body with the sole authority
and impose upon it the specitlc duty
of deciding how and when such funds
shall be applied to the discharge Of
the expenses, debts, or other engage
ments or liabilities of the government,
and such is the limitation imposed by
our present constitutional provision:
Ristine VS.. State 20, Ind. 32S; State
vs.. Burdick, 80 Pac. 125; 2 Op. Atty.
Gen. U. S. go. An appropriation, as
applicable to the general fund in
the treasury, may, perhaps, be denned
to be, says Perkins, j., in Ristine VS..
State, SUPRA" an authority from the
Legislature given at the proper time,
and in legal form, to the proper OIL
GERS to apply sums of money out of
that which may be in the treasury, in
a given year, to specified objects or de-
mands against the state
Webster defines appropriations" as
"the act of setting apart or assigning
to particular use or person in eXclu-
sion of all others; application to a
special use or purpose, as or
money to carry out some public OBJ
jecL." No particular expression or set
form of words is requisite or Deces-
sary to the accomplishment of the
purpose, and the appropriation may
be prospective as we'll as in present.,
that is ait may be made in one year OF
the revenues to accrue IN another or
future years, the law being so framed
ifon1f fn cI1nh fI1fII ra
revenues" Humbert VS.. Dunn,84 Cal. !
81; Proll VS.. Dunn, 80 Cal. 22O. And !
in every in every instance 1t |
becomes question of legislative in |
tent to be gathered under the settled |
rules of Interpretation from the Ian
puage employed, the context, the ne
cessity for the enactment and purpose |
to be accomplished, considered in the
light of cOntempoTaneous circum-
stunces. Field, j., in McCauleY VS..
Brooks, 16 Cal. 2S, says: ITO an ap-
within the mean
ing of the constitution, nothing
more is requisite than designation
of the amount and the fund out OF
which it shall be paid. 1t is not es-
sential to its validity that funds to
meet the same should be at the time
in the Treasury" 1t is maintained
by some authorities that constitu.
tional provisions fixing the salaries of
state officers proprio vigore makes an
appropriation out of the treasury for
The payment of the same as they be-
come due, and this upon the ground
that such salaries have become fixed
and unchangeable by any power
vested in the legislature and that to
withhold the funds necessary to their
Dayment would te subsursive of the
Will of the people as expressed by the
law In is said, arguendo'
that if the legislature. is without
power to reduce the salaries Of such Of
icers it cannot be affirmed that II may
take away the whole by withholding
Jhe funds requisite TO payment. In
support of this view Thomas VS..
Ovens, A Md. IS9, decided in 1853, is
perhaps the leading case. 1t has been
in State v. Hickman, % Pac.
Mont.) TAO, and State v. Weston, 4
Neb.2I6 and criticised in Myers Y.
English, 8 Cal. 341: The Nebraska
,ase, however, presents a dissimilar
feature in tnat the constitution pro-
vides that Uthe authorities shall draw