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

lions IS IN support or this advance
ment upon the doctrine. State v
Burdick, 33 Pac. 1875; People v. Good
ykoontz, As Pac Ala As directly op
posed to this view, see Myers v. En-
glish, supra, Yet other authoritie:
maintain that the result OF such leg
islation Is TO effectuate an apprO
priatiOn, regardless of the fundamen
tai law limiting the power of the leg
islature TO change the amount of OH
cial salaries TO times other than dur
ing incumbency, and that no annual
or special appropriation is otherwise
necessary to authorize the disburse.
meDt of public funds by the officers
in charge in payment of such
demands as they arise. See Rey.
Carr V. State, 127 Ind. 204. 1t is diff
ticult to understand, however, upon
what principle an enactment of the
nature indicated can have the effect
claimed for it. The plain letter of
the statute falls very far short of an
express direction to that end, and the
apparent object to be attained is fully
accomplished when the salary and
times Of its payment are definitely
| fixed No other or further intend
ment is predicated of statutes of like
nature where individuals only are
concerned, and a different rule ought
not to prevail because the state is
| concerned. But we beleiye the weight
of authority is opposed to this latter
advance upon the doctrine, and that
thebetter rule requires something
more by which to indicate legisla-
| tive ve1ntendmeut to effectuate an ap-
| preparation. In Nichols The Comp.
troller, Stewart & Porter, l54, the
case upon which Reynolds VS. Taylor,
supra, seems to have been based,
it was determined that an
act fixing salary. payable quarter
| yearly out of any money in the treasury
not otherwise appropriated" made an
appropriation for the purpose of
meeting the quarterly payments. In
Humbert vs.. Dunn, 84 Cal. 81, tue
act under consideration provided that
leach member" (of a commission
"shall receive salary Of $2400 paya-
BILE monthly, to be paid out
of any money in the treasury not
otherwise appropriated, and it was
held that this operated as an appro-
priation. The statutory provisions
as indicated by these cases, are SINH
lar to the Nebraska constitutional
provision referred to. And inCutting VS.
Taylor, 15 l. r. A. 69l, which comes
nearer the case at barr, the language
employed was: The auditor
shall issue and deliver to the claim
ant in each city, town, etc, his war
rant upon the territorial treasurer for
amount equal to 2 per cent. of the
premiums received upoh the policies
issued upon any property in any city,
town, ETC., and such warrant shall be
paid by the territorial treasurer upon
presentation thereof" See also State
VS.. Kenney, 10 Mont. 4S5. From
statutes of the nature indicated by
these authOraties the inference is
natural and legitimate that it was the
legislative intent not only that the
salaries should be rendered definite
and certain but that when falling due
funds in the treasury applicable to
their payment should be at all times
in readiness for their prompt dis
charge, and hence the appropriation
as a necessary result to meet the pur-
poses of the legislation. 1t is one
thing to Tx the amount and times OF
payment of an officers salary and
quite another tC provide funds and
make them available at specified
times so that the state will not at
any time default in its payments, and
itdOeS not occur to us that a fixed
salary with stated times for the pay
ment of proportional installments
thereof, can with any greater pro-
priety, carry with it an appropriation
of funds with which to meet the pay
meuts than where the state has be-
come otherwise obligated under aut-
hOrity of law and no appropriation has
been made anticipating payment.
Whatever may be the correct rule,
where the salary is fixed by the con-
or where it is by that in
strument rendered Interchangeable dur
ing incumbency followed by legisla-
tion simply fixing the amount and
times Of payment thereof, it is quite
certain that if regard be paid to the
known and we'll settled rules of statu-
tory construction that the legislature
has not by the enactment Of such a
statute without else manifested an
intention of setting aside funds in
the treasury for its payment. Some
thing more is needed, some setting
aside of a particular fund, or designa-
tion Of fund out of which 1t shall be
paid, or direction to the officer in
Charge requiring ullu w lndhC pay
ment at particular times or that it be
paid out of the treasury.
And this gets us back to the origi-
nal proposition that an appropriation
is the setting aside or designation by
express direction or by implication, of
particular funds for the discharge Of
definite and specified obligations or
which, however, may be in
contemplation, such as will arise in
the future, and the appropriation
may be continuing in its nature, but
the legislative intent to have funds
always ready and applicable to their
prompt discharge at stated times
works out the appropriation, and
nothing short OF it can haYe such an
effect. Under the legislative direc-
lion that the salaries of all state Off
GERS "shall be paid quarterly out of
The treasury of this state, upon the
warrant of the Secretary OF State,
from and after they en-
-er upon the duties Of their respective
and under the authorities
which seem pertinent to the inquiry
We would be inclined TO hold that a |
appropriation had been
4. Of