The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1903-06-26
BEARD ON JENNINGS.
Suys His Recent Veto Wus q
Gr0Dd Stund Performance.
Veto uncon stitutionsl and Says That
the Governor is Wanting in the
Courage of His Convictions.

Journal reporter on Governor Jen-
niDg's veto cutting down the ap
preparations.
The foil loving is the full text of Mr..
Boards interview:
"The reasons given by the governor
for reducing certain items in the gen
eral appropriation bill are incOnsis-
tent, illogical, and unquestionably
demonstrate that so far from obeyiny
q constitutional mandate, that he VIC
lated a constitutional duty. section
80, Article 8, of the Constitution of the
State of Florida declares: Laws max
ing appropriations for the salaries of
public officers and other current ex
penses of the state shall contain pro-
visions upon no other subject.
1.-THE advisory opinion of Judge
Westcott, so glibly cited in his veto,
has little, if any, bearing upOn the
question considered by the governor,
and SO far as it has any bearing, is
condemnation Of the governors &c
ton, as the most casual reading OF
Judge WestcOtt's opinion will show.
"The bill, | think, was unconstitu-
tiOnal as to every appropriation not
for salaries of public officers and
other current expenses of the state
and it was not only the right hut
the constitutional duty of the gov
ernOr to veto mot scale every item in
this bill not making appropriations
for salaries of public officers aud
other current expenses of the state
Section Is. Article 1, of the COnstitu-
ton reads: 1.-The governor shall hav.
power to disapprove any item or items
of any bills making appropriations OF
money embracing distinct items
and the part or parts of the bill ap
proved shall be the law and the item
or items disapproved shall be vcid,
etc, etc. 1t is apparent from the
first cited clause---SectiOn 80, Article
8, of the Constitution---that the items
scaled 10y the governor were uncon-
stitutiOnal, and from the last clause
cited---SectiOn Is, Article 4---that the
governor was authorized, ana it was
his duty, to disapprove the entire
items.
"The cutting down or scaling of
these items was not only inconsistent
and illogical, but unconstitutional. |
do not remember the amounts of these
different items; but let US suppose AL
amount for illustration: Suppose the
legislature had appropriated in this
bill 100000 for the Florida State
College, and such an item in the gem
eral appropriation is unconstitutional.
Is it not equally unconstitutional if
the governor cuts the amount down to
$50, 900? 1t is not the amount as the
governor seems to think, but the sub
ject matter, that makes such an ap-
preparation in such a bill unconstitu-
tiOnal. Besides by substituting
$4,000 for the 100000 appropriated
by the Legislature, would not the gov
ernOr be substituting the executive
will for the legislative will, which is
a direct and palpable violation of the
The whole thing is a
grandstand play to the dear people as
saving money to the Taxpayers with
out the political courage to discharge
aiplain constitutional duty. 1t is the
trick of the politician to catch votes
in the 1904 primary.
Had Governor Jennings fearlessly |
discharged his constitutional duly.
even those who might differ with him
would have given him credit for the
courage of his convictions; but such
with constitutional ex-
ecutive functions, obviously for selfish |
ends, is in.olerable.
" L presume, though, that he acted
upon the advice of his able and learn
ed and experienced attorney-generaI.
who in this as in other opinions rend-
cred by him, differs widely with every
lawyer in the state of ability and
standing. The encouragement is
wonderfully prone to cite authorities