The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-29
,noney) out OF the public treasury.

money! out Of the public treasury.
The ninth section merely ascertalns
at what rate (the exact amount even
is not fixed) the commissioner is to be
paid. and when it directs how he is to
be paid. says he is to be paid in the
same manner as compensation is now
made to the commissioner OF the re-
venue AS the commissioner Of the re-
venue was paid under tho general ap-
preparation bill from year to year. and
as the only way In which he could be
paid was under the provisions Of this
bill, then pending and about to pass,
this language amounts to no more than
saying that the Commissioner Of Valua-
ton should be paid as provided for in
the general appropriate ton bill
But whether this view be sound or
not. the ninth section clearly does not
appropriate. set apart, any money or
fund for the payment of this commission.
FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nor does the eighth section do SO
either All they do is to declare that
these expenses are proper charge on
the State and that they may be payable
out of the State Treasury. No fund was
appropriated or even designated for the
payment. That was left for the future act
OF the Legislature and was to be pro-
vided for by the general appropriation
bill, in the absence Of which the auditor
would have no authority to pay out any
money under either Of these sections"
Eve think that the very measures re-
lied upon by the opponents OF this bill
to have it declared void, are themselves
void.
lis it that the provisions of this act
are so clearly interdependent that, If
one section is found unconstitutional that
all must fall, yet this court is asked to
tla sections
constitutional?"
Mr.. Carter stated that no appropria-
ton was in any way made by the meas
IRE, and the courts could not decide that
the act was unconstitutional on that
ground.
Scnuto John w. Daniel made the clos
ing argument for the petitioner
Senator Daniel reviewed the English
struggles of the Seventeenth century
Said he:
1T has been fundamental principle
perpetuated In the Virginia Constitution
that a record shall be kept of all votes
on appropriations to be made from pubic
funds. This forinality was not observed,
and in all the cases that have been cited
in which courts have eXpunCed the un-
constitutional sections. our opponents
have not cited one in which such a course
was pursued where the fundamental prln-
c!ples have been violated.
Our Constitution says that on the pas
sage of every act devising or providing
for appropriations vote of ayes and
noes shall be taken and recorded on
the journals Of each house
This record must be kept to show
whether the bill was passed by con-
stitutional majority. This is imperative.
THE act before us was still born.
It never breathed day of life. The very
day on which it was alleged to have
passed, a declaration signed by two-thirds
ma ajority of the Senate declared that 1t
had not passed in constitutional manner,
The Supreme Court recognizes the dill
ference between such cases as has
been cited and the case in question.
There is mot town in the State that
does not furnish them client.
1.-The provisions of this act remove the
power Of the people, and reposes it in a
central government, and allows such off
spring to supersede. and for longer
period exercise those functions Of the
officer chosen for this very purpose by
the people. 1t is passing strange, say
that our friends cannot see in the sec
tions of this bill provisions for an appro-
rriation, where it specifically states tina t
books and printing were to be the prop
erty of the State, and in nc sense the
individual property of the commissioner.
In the words of ten commandments, the
most imperative terms of the iansuaSe e
we read in section No. 9: Shall be paid
out of the treasury.
THAT not an appropriation!
Senator Daniel carefully reviewed the
language of the act, and pointed out in
stance after instance where appropria-