The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-22

| to the $500 prison voucher, issued for
expense of examining accounts, which
Treasurer Worth refused to pay, as pub
lished in yesterdays paper:
Nov. d. 1899.
Hon. w. H. Worth, State Treasurer.
| Raleigh, n. c.:
| Sir:--ln reply to your communication
| of the 18th instant, requesting the opin-
| ion OF this department as to your duties
| in relation to warrants drawn under the
| provisions of Acts 1899, chapter GOT. I
| will say that sections q of the said chan
| ter 607, Acts 1899. provides that ''said
| fund shall be paid out by the said State
| Treasurer only upon the warrant of said
r. Il. Travis w. II. Osborne and w.
| G. Newland.'
| While this would preclude You from
paying out a cent of the aforesaid fund
except upon the warrant of the execu-
tive board, | do not think it relieves you
Of the duty us Treasurer to see to it
that all warrants are legally drawn in
compliance with chapter GOT, Acts 1899
as construed by Arendell VS.. Worth. de-
cided at September term of the Supreme
Court, 1899. The executive board of
the board of directors of the States
PRISON audit and pass upon all claims
and accounts against the States prison
and you can pay ont no money except
upon their warrants. but if any warrant
is not authorized by law, that is, if
YOU should pay a warrant illegally
drawn, lit would be at your peril.
If You should have reasonable doubts
as to the legality of warrant it would
be your duty ito satisfy yourself of its
legality before making payment thereof
In the case under consideration it would
seem that no warrant could be drawn
that could mot be easily shown to come
either within the appropriations for the
States prison for 1899, or the bond
issue covering all debts contracted prior
to December 81, 1899.
Judge Clark. has i'm a recent case.
Bank VS.. Worth, III n. G. 146, in
very forceful and clear-cut opinion.
concurred in by full bench declared
the law on a question similar to the
one under consideration. He says ut
was strenuously and it would seem
seriously argued before MS that, the
Auditor having given his warrant, the
Treasurer had no choice but to pay it.
The Auditor gives no bond, and If
tIlp i IeuSHIeI UhtlSI pay tiiiy sllHl tNGJy
warrant that is presented ito him, the
State Treasury is at the mercy o. the
Judgment of the Auditor who might
mistake or misconceive (as in this IN
staiice) tue meaning of an act. The.
laws of this State do not bear that COM
striction The Auditor examines the
items and amounts and passes upon
Them and can require the claimant to
l. no. fl.
rectness of the account. Code, section
1850 az. If he finds the amount cor
rect, and further that payment is pro-
vided by law. Code, section 1850 "a, be
is required to draw his warrant on the
Treasurer for payment thereof, but he Isl
also required to put in the face of each
warrant drawn by him the act auth0riz-
ing such payment This is TO give no.
tice to the Treasurer that he may act
understandingly, for he is not required
to pay amy and every warrant which the
Auditor may sign. but only ito pay all
warrants legally drawn on the Treas
lrer by the Auditor" Code, section
1856 90. Should the Treasurer have
reasonable doubts he should consult the
Attorney General, or if he think proper
refuse payment, as in this case, and let
the matter be determined by the courts.
Our government is one of checks and
balances. 1T is not intended that pay
ments ont of the public funds should
be made on the judgment of the public
Treasurer alone or the Auditor alone.
The Auditor examines as to the amounts
and The performance of the work. lit
would seem that as to the facts his
finding is conclusive, the Code. 80
90: certainly it is sufficient protection
lin the absence Of any collision or no
tice of fraud to the Treasurer. But
the Auditor goes further Tie exam-
ines as to whether the payment of the
claim is authorized or provided for by
law. If he so finds, his conclusion as
to the law / snot binding ON, nor is 1T
a protection to, the Treasurer. The Au-
ditor is required to set out the act pro-
yiding for payment i'm the face of the
warrant the Code 1850 (9) and YIN
the application of such statute the
Treasurer must also pass before pay
ment, and he has authority to take the
opinion of the Attorney General, Code.
section 1868 a. or he can act without
it at his own risk either in paying or
refusing payment of a warrant which in
his Judgment is not authorized by any
statute. 1t is thus that the law making
power hedges about the safe-keeping of
the public funds. The Treasurers bond
Code. 81 ction 1850 is safeguard not
only against his misuse or misappro-
priation Of the funds committed to him,
lalt against his paying of illegal claims,
for the bond provides for the faithful
execution of the duties of his office"
and Que Of those duties is to pay ont
no money except on warrant drawn by
the Auditor, and to pay all legal war
rants drawn by him. Illegal warrants,
rot authorized by law, the Treasurer
pays at his peril. The duty of the spe-
clad commissioners appointed under sec
tion 1861 of the Code is not limited
merely to examining whether all war
rants are signed by the Auditor, a
very simple matter, but they are requir-
ed by that section to examine also to
see whether such payments were au-
thorized by law, as well as by the Au-
ditor."
The foregoing language of unani-
NOUS court would seem to establish be-
yond question your duties as bonded
officer and the guardian of the funds