The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-20

Is no surplus; but in the event the in- come does exceed the amount or the appropriations. Is there anything in there to prevent the Legislature from appropriating 1t?
 MT. walxrr-I think so.
 MT. Oates--Nothing at all: 1t only prevents them from appropriating in excess of the income.
 (Mr. Robinson here propounded a question to Mir. Oates which the stenographer was unable to hesr.)
 Mir. walker-Suppose that there was a fund in the treasury arising by sinking fund arrangement on the Issue of bonds, how could that fund be ap- propriated under this provision? It would be in excess of the revenues Of the current year.
 MT. Oates-Isn't that assuming that it would be in excess. It is only to prevent the Legislature from appro- priating more money than the income or the estimated income. Now If the income exceeds the amount of the regular appropriations, there is nothing in the world in 1t that prevents the Legislature from appropriating that excess, just so they do not go beyond the amount of the income.
 MT. Walker-That would be going beyond the amount of the income.
 Mr. Dent-I have been absent un- fortunately and l would like to get 'soY1e information. JAS understand it this section limits the amount to be appropriated by the Legislature to the income from the revenues of the State. Do l understand in this section that we have adopted, anything beyond the revenues arising from taxation for that particular year could be appropriated by the Legsslature? That is the ques- tion that is in my mind and I would be glad if the distinguished Chairman of the Committee would make that plain to me. I don't see how we could appropriate anything beyond the in- come from the revenues as estimated.
 MT. Oates-It seems to me that is clear. 1t Is a limitation on the power of the Legislature not to make appro- priations beyond the estimated income for each year; but if the income ex- ceeds the amount of the ordinary ap- propriations and expenses-suppose it does, you cannot have a surplus in the treasury unless 1t does exceed the amount of expenditures appropriated; but sir. the limitation does not at- tempt. nor is there any language in 1t which goes to the extent of preventing the Legislature from appropriating where there is a surplus accumulated by a greater income than the amount of expenditures. The limitation is to keep the Legislature from making ap- propriatinns beyond and above the in- come. You won't have any surplus at afl>unless the income is more than the outgo; and if it Is more there is no limitation upon 1t. If 1t Is more where Is any language that prevents the Legislature from appropriating 1t and using it, just so they do not exceed the amount of the income. That Is the limitation that this section puts upon it
 Mir. Hood-If they appropriated an amount that exceeded the estimated income. would the appropriation be void?
 MT. oates-Now you have propound- ed to me a question for the court to decide. That would present question of entirely a judicial character and cannot say whether it would be void or not.
 MT. Hood-wouldn't it be discre- tionary with the Legislature-wouldn't it be left to the discretion of the Leg, islature.
 Mir. Oates-That presents. as l say judicial question. Now if the appro- priations were to exceed, actually ex- ceed the estimate of the income?
 MT Hood-Yes sir.
 MT. Oates-Then suppose the income exceeded the estimate? Is there any limitation or restriction upon the Leg islature in appropriating that? So they do not go beyoAd the income
 MT. Hood-It reads "the aggregate appropriations made shall not exceed in amount the income from the revenues of the State for the current fiscal year"
 MT. Oates-That is not the section now "a substitute was adopted.
 Mir. O'Neal (Lauderdale)-What was the substitute?
 MT. oares-To be estimated for each year.
 lMr. Knox here resumed the chair)
 MT. Sanford (Pike)-I will ask the gentleman from Montgomery if the Legislature Is to be governed by the estimate made by these officers with reference to the revenues to be derived from taxation and other sources. II that would not place the appropriations by the Legislature absolutely in the hands of the party who makes the estimateY
 MT. Oates-Not at all. It seems that certain delegates. l don't mean the delegate from Pike. but there seems to be such a wide apprehension in the minds of a good many of the delegates. They seem to think that the Governor and the other officer charged with the duty, are not to be trusted. are uHl- worthy of being trusted. We have had no such experience as that in this State-no such trouble as that. The Legislatures, however, at times do get too wild in their appropriations and go beyond the probable income. Every urle knows, or ought to know, that the Governor-take fer instance my friend. the delegate from Pike and put him Tn the Governors chair, would he esti- mate faithlessly, or would he not esti-. mate according to the best information that would not go beyond the proba- ble income? Any gentleman in that high position will do that and no more. 1t is not putting the power of appro- priation altogether into the hands of tn Governor and the Auditor. It isspua.ing A limitation upon the powers of the Legislature in this regard. Of course. it is largely directory. presume, while the question presented by the delegate from Etowah is a judicial one, in a case of the kind that he men tions, whether the appropriations would be void or not, it might be held by the Court, and probab would be held. that this section was directory, and If an honest mistake was made the ap- propriation would probably be sus- tained. I think it would. I don't see