Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-12-30

effective appropriation. There Is no
designated amount, and, consequent
ly, there is no specific appropriation
to be exhausted unless it can be said
that the whole general fund is set
aside as specific appropriation to
the end in view-a proposition not
! seriously to be considered" In In
stitute of Education VS.. Henderson,
IS Colo. 1906, the supreme court of
, that state says: "To permit the dis
bursement of an indefinite amount Of
money as these bounty acts contem-
plate is to introduce an element Of
uncertainty into these calculations
that will seriously embarrass both
the legislature and the departments
in giving effect to our state constitu-
ton with relation to the levying of
taxes to meet appropriations. If the
legislature desires to pay bounties it
may do so for all proper purposes by
making the necessary appropriation
therefor" The latter case related to
the validity of bounty acts which con-
tanned no provision limiting the
amount which might be expended un-
der them. The court held that the
limit of appropriations for any year
being fixed by the amount of revenue
which might be raised by taxation
prevented this act from being opera
tive. In State VS.. Moore, so Neb. S8,
81 ON. St. Rep. 538, the court had
under consideration an act of the leg
islature of that state providing for
the payment of bounty to the man
ufacturers of beet and other sugar,
in the sum of five-eighths of one cent
per pound. The act provided that
when any claim arose hereunder and
was flied, and verified, and approved
by the secretary of state as therein
provided, it should be certified to the
auditor of the state who should draw
a warrant upon the treasurer for the
amount due thereon payable to the
parties named. Section %, article 8
of the constitut ion of that state pro-
vides that no money shall be drawn
from the treasury except in pursu-
by law on the presentation of a war
rant issued by the auditor thereon.
The court held that such an act, if |
held to be an appropriation, might in
itself appropriate more than the en-
tire revenue of the state and that it
could not be held to be an appropria-
ton because not certain and limited |
in it's amount. That court made a
careful investigation of authorities
and after reviewing them it says:
'In no case, however, which we have
been able to discover under any con-
stitutional provision has it been held
that an appropriation is valid when
it is uncertain in it's amount, and
that uncertainty arises with regard
to the extent of the demands or
claims which the recipients Of the
fund may present against it, on the
other hand, in nearly all the cases
cited, and in many more which might
be cited certainty in
amount is treated as an essential re-
luisite of valid appropriation" We
think the cases from which we have
quoted are directly in point and state
sound reasons for holding that in the
absence of an ascertainable limit to
the amount Of money which may be
devoted to the object contemplated,
no appropriation is made. We shall
not take the time to review other
authorities or the history and the
principles underlying the subject of
The history Of the
subject and of various restrictions
upon Legislative bodies, provided for
the protection Of the public, is an
extremely interesting study. Some
Of the authorities cited briefly out
line it and a learned discussion will
be found in Ristine S. State, 20 In
Llama 1923. A distinction exists be-
;ween an appropriation and a fund.
The state does not maintain that it
S necessary to set apart or designate
/ fund to make the act in question
operative if it is necessary to place
/ limit upon the amount which may
paid out of the general fund under
he act. 1t only contends that when
10 such limit is placed a fund must
oe named from which to make the
payments, hence, we do not conside
me question Of the designation of the
und, which at one time was suggest.
ID, as necessary.
The order and judgment of the dis
riot court are reversed.