The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1899-04-11
COUNCIL BILL NO. z
IS NOT VALID


AfhlNNNiNA NNlAAANNNa
.H c. Beamor. plainun, vs s. n. Hopkins
auditor. defendant
rhe plaintin in October. 1897 entered
into contract with the governor of the
territory for the care and education of
the blind and the deaf and dumb OF the
territory. and by the terms of said com
tract he was 10 receive FOR his services
the sum OF Two hundred and seventy-hve
dollars per annum FOR each person. eth.
er deaf dumb of blind committed 10 ms
care, said sum to be paid quarterly said
contract was authorized by a law OF The
territory, the expense TO be paid out OF
the funds 90 be provided for such pur-
poses.
The plaintiff filed HE verified account
for the quarter ending March 31st, 1913
and demanded his warrant therefor The
Auditor refused to draw the warrant fer
tie reasons that there was no appropria-
tion available for such purpose and that
Council Bill No. claimed to have pass
ed the last legislative assembly pronib-
| its the drawing Of warrants eAcept where
specific appropriations are made for such
purposes.
This proceeding is brought to compel
the Auditor % draw his vacant Tor the
amount due the plaintiff under his con-
tract
Is THERE ANY APPROPRIATIONS
The first question presented, is there
any appropriation available f0r payment
OF the expense Of the blind, deaf ana
dumbG The last legislative assembly en-
acted law which provides for a spec
ihc levy for the years 1899 and 1900 to
raise funds for paymen. of the expense
Of the care end educau)l of the blind,
deaf and dumb. But the funds from the
Ilevy for 1899 under the provisions OF this
Ilaw will not be available before the last
quarter Of this year, and in the mean
time II Council Bin No. 2 Is the law of
the territory the Auditor is absolutely
prohibited from drawing any warrants
for these expenses until the taxes are
levied and collected this year, My COM
clusion is. that the Auditor has no means
at this time, before the assessments foe
this year are returned, Of determining
the amount that viii be realized from the
authorized levy, and that any warrant
he might draw. would, ia anticipation Of
such fund, endanger him with a viola
tion Of that provision Of Council Bill,
No. which prohibits the drawing OF any
Warrant IN excess Of the appropriation
for such purposes. Hence. IL Council Bin
No. IS the law. the plaintiff must wait
Tor lis warrant until the taxes for this
iyear are levied and collected.
| is COUNCIL BILL no. A LAW9
It Is contended by the plaintiff that
Council Bill No. never became a law.
IN the determination OF this question,
some novel and interesting questions are
presented for the courts consideration,
but as the territory as prolific with novel
and Interesting questions, we express 40
surprise. The o)urts Of this territory ars
being continua ~ called upon to apply
old rules and precedents to new condi-
tions and deal with propositions which
are original and without judicial pre:e
dent.
The Act known as Council Bill No. 2
passed both houses of the general as 'em-
bly,, was duly transmitted to the COVER
nor for bis approval and was I'm hue
time returned TO the Council without his
approval ad with his objections thereto.
Il is now contended that the court may
! look to the journals Of the two houses
t1 determine how the bin was dealt with
and to ascertain whether OF not lt be.
came a law. Notwithstanding the oblsc.
tions Of the governor
/ regard IL as now the settled .ow OF
this territory that where an Ac. Of the
legislative assembly is found with he
proper custodian, authenticated by the
signatures Of the Speaker Of the House,
the President Of the Council and appr1v-
al by the Governor. that such authenu-
cation Is conclusive that IT passed the
| iauiaIQFnra In "A a
the Courts viii not go behind the sigma.
lures of these officials to inquire into
any Of the steps taken by the Legislature.
THE LAW AND VETOES
But O different question is presented
In this inquiry. The governor is not re-
quired 10 approve a vetoed bin, nor arc
the presiding officers required to authen-
tlcate It IN any manner after the veto is
taken to pass the bin over the objec-
tions OF the governor.
The provision Of the Organic Act on
this subject Is as follows;
Every bin which shall have passed
the council and the house of representa-
uves of said territory shall, before it be-
comes law be presented TO the Cover
nor OF the territory. II he approves. hs
shall sign it, but II not he shall return
IL with his objections TO the house IN
which II originated, who shall enter the
objections at large upon their journal
ana proceed to reconsider H. II, after
such reconsideration, two thirds of that
house shah agree to pass the bin, II
shall be sent, together with the obj0c-
uons 10 the other house, by which Il
| shall likewise be recOnsldered and n ap-
proved by two-thirds OF that house, Il
shall become a law. But I'm all such eases
the vote Of both houses shall be deter
mined by yeas and nays TO be entered on
the journal Of each house respectively"
l. il win be observed that when such bill
receives the assent OF two-thlrds OF each
house, then Il becomes a law. No further
action Is necessary. No naturalization
Is provided for; hence, the only source
to which the court can look for evidence
OF its authenticity are the records OF tho
two houses while carrying out the pro-
visions Of the Organic Act The Organic
Act may be appropriately termed our
Constitution. from Il each department OF
Government gets all It's powers. ana are
bound by an its limitations
SOME PRECEDENTs
The provisions OF the Constitution Of
the state of Indiana on the subject un-
der oosideration is identical with the
terms OF the Organic Act The supreme
court Of that state had under considera-
ton similar question In the case OF
State eX rel Holt vs. DENY, us Ind 4ls.
and there said;
I'm the ease OF passage OF bills, not
withdrawing the ObfcotiOue of the Gov