The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1909-06-01

I'
or object speeined u tbs Get spthorising sucl
debt or LIABILITY or for the repayment OF euef
debt or liability. and for no other purpose what
ever.
Sections 2, 3 and 1 above quoted were
Sections 10, II and 70 Of Article VII. In the
revision Of is4e. Section 10 was introduced
by the revision Of 1890. The authority to
improve the canals 10 derived from Section
10. but the exercise OF that authority 10
plainly limited by the specification In the
paragraph Of the ways by which the
means Of payment for the Improvement
shall be provided. II the power was exer-
cised payment was TO be provided In ac-
cordance with the already existing consti-
tutional methods, 1T was to be provided
either by a debt under Section I or by an
appropriation Of money which the State
actually had In It's treasury, br by the i'm
position OF q tax. The provision Of the new
section was in harmony with the existing
scheme Of constitutional limitation .Son che
debt making power Of the LEGISLATURE and
not at variance with that schema A new
field Of legislative action was opened. but
the old limitations upon that action were
carried into the new field.
The general scheme of those limitations
Is plain; II Is to prevent the imposition OF
future burdens upon the people by the In
curing Of obligations and the ~postpontng
of provisions for payment: 1t Ia to link to-
gether the authority for expenditure with
the immediate provision for meeting the
expenditure, 80 that the benefit and burden
shall both be in plain sight and be con-
sidered together when the expenditure AZ
authorised by the people Of the State
either directly or indirectly through the
Legislature.
0p tun nroyinuc ncooofDno the ToUic1 ftra
has endeavored to evade these provisions
In It's dealing with the canals. In both
instances TIC courts DECLARED the dcss Of The
Legislature 10 be roid.>
The first attempt was the act Of July 10.
1881. entitled An act to provide for the COM
pletion Of the Erie Canal enlargement and
the Gepesee Valley aud Black River Canals"
The act authorized the issue and sale Of
certificates payable out of the future reve-
nues Of the canals aud the application OF
their proceeds to the work of Improvement.
certificates were to contain provisions
expressly limiting the liability of the State
thereon to the payment OF the surplus reye-
nues Of the canals. and the law expressly
provided that the certificates should In no
event create a liability or debt against the
state.
1t Wa claimed by the defenders OF the act
that there was merely a disposition Of the
particular fund arising from the canals,
and no debt within the meaning OF. Article
VII. Of the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals. i'm the case OF
Newell VS.. The People. I N. Y. Gig. held
that the substantial effect upon the financial
condition Of the State was the same and that
the Constitution could not be evaded. The
Court said:
II the constitutional provision against incur
ring debts permits such a scheme as this 10 be
enectusl II Is Of small moment 10 inquire what
II prohibits; for II provides no practical restraint
Whatever upon the power Of Legislature. To
attribute such an Intention 10 the convention or
10 tho people as to permit the one and prohibit
the other Is TO attribute to them an entire incapac-
ity 10 comprehend the subject on which they wero
acting and the effect OF their own language. II
is constituting the Constitution as II It were a penal
statute or a disfavored agreement In conflict with
public policy rather than as being the supreme
law Of the State, prescribed by the Immediate
source Of all authority. 70 set bounds TO the power
delegated TO lis agents.
In the years 1859, 1870 and 1871 the IDegis-
lathre adopted the method OF authorizing
what was called new work and extraor-
binary repairs" on the canals and making
appropriations without providing any means
for payment. In the same year other ap-
preparations for other objects we're made
without providing means for payment, and
Chapter 100 Of the Laws Of 1872. which was
approved by the people In the election Of
that year. provided for the creation OF a
debt to satisfy these supposed liabilities.
The Court OF Appeals. In the case OF People
ex rel. Hopkins VS.. the Supervisors of Kings,
assesses. declared that the liabilities to cover
which the proposed debt was to be created
were themselves In violation Of the Consti-
tuition. as being debts created without COM
pliance with the provisions OF that instru.
ment. The Court said
But the whole theory OF the act Is entirely sub
verstve Of the Constitution. 1t proceeds upon
the assumption that q State debt may be created
and exist outside Of the Constitution, either by
act Of the Legislature or The acts Of the admin
or executive ofncers and agents Of the
state. that. Notwithstanding the strih gent pro-
visions OF the organic law of the State, expenses
may be authorized and liabilities Incurred In
advance and In excess OF money provided. which
must be met either by direct taxation or by Dor
II no debt existed there was DO neces-
for borrowing money. The future expendi-
lures of the State were within the coptrol Of the
Legislature. and could not. within the Coustl.
tuition. exceed he means provided except as a
debt might be created. not exceeding 81 ,OOO, 900
IN amount, 10 meet deficits or failures In revenues, !
Or for expenses not provided for. To this extent |
q cHipothi todH Coull IN Nldue. SOnStltWti0n,
Article VII. Section TO- debt Of IS OoO 900, or |
liabilities TO that amount. and resting as a burden \
Upon the people. resulting from the acts Of the !
legislature and the agents and officers OF the
state. Is an imposslbility for the reason that II is |
absolutely prohibited, and any attempt TO create |
such debt or Incur such liability Is a nuility. There |
an be no nosting debt under the present Con |
neither can q debt be created by making !
appropriations and directing expenditures In |
,1cess Of taxes levied and means provided. Could |
he Constitution and the intent Of the people In |
adopting It be thus easily circumvenied and /,
that instrument would be of little
iaiue. The fallacy that there Is or can be a Goa t. |
ng debt, or a debt created In the discretion OF
he Legislature by excessive appropriations and
'canty tax lcyies. lies at the foundation OF this
,ci ana all kindred schemes for borrowing money |
the pretence OF relieving the treasury and
preserving the credit Of the State. Neither the |
nor the Officers and agents OF the |
nor all combined, can create q debt or incur
n obligation for or In behalf OF the State except
o the amount and In the manner provided for in
he Constitution.
An application OF the principles declared
n these cases leads to the conclusion that
he present statute violates:
l. The provision OF Section 10 OF Article
VII, In that 1t undertakes to improve the
without providing for defrayinR the
'ntire cost.
2. The provisions of Sections 2 and 4 Of
Article VII. In that the obligations for land
AIKEN and for contracts entered into not
'eins limited TO the amount of bonds which
nay be sold. being without complete pro-
'ision for their payment and constituting
burden Upon the future OF the State. win
'e debts and liabilities" which the Legisla.