The log cabin Democrat., 1913-05-09
APPROPRIATION
 ACT THREATENED CLERICAL ERROR FOUND SPEC1A LSESSION OF LEGISLA- TURF MAY BE NECESSARY
 TO CORRECT ERROR.

A special session of the legislature may be inevitable if the point should be raised and the courts should de- eide that an irregularity, recently dis covered in the general appropriation bill, passed by the last legislature in the closing hours of it's 1913 session, invalidates every item of the measure which provided for the expense of op- erating and maintaining every depart ment of the state government for the next two years, according to this mornings Arkansas Gazette.
 Every state official is aware of the discovery of the law and there has been much discussion of the matter be- hind closed doors at the state capitol. It IS not probable that state official will question the validity of the appro- priatlon bill, because each is satisfied With the appropriation given his par ticular department and does not care to risk losing part of his allotment Iat the hands of the general assembly in special session.
 The flaw in the passage of the ap- Ipropriation bill consists of the fact that the house passed the appropria- tlon hiil in it's entirety and the senate passed an amended bill which cut off and item providing $9,60O for the ex- Ipenses of commercial feed inspectors m the Department of Mines, Manufac- lures and Agriculture, after the house had refused to concur in the amend ment.
 Many officials feared that Commis- sioner John H. Page would question the validity of the bill, yet MT. Page declared last night he had not consid- cred such action. Attorney General Moose, although admitting he was aware of the doubt of the bills valid ity, declared he had not been asked for an opinion on the subject and would not investigate the matter unless re- quested to do so by a state official.
 The general appropriation bill was introduced in the house of representa- tlves and after being amended in va
 ilous items was passed by that body. The bill provided an appropriation of $23,612 to enforce the commercial feed inspection, the items being divided as follows: For the salaries of inspec- tors, S7,512; for the expenses of in- spectors, $9,600; for tags, S3,000; for analyses, $2,5O0; contingent, $1,000.
 When the bill was transmitted to the senate and considered in the con- mittee of the whole, an amendment was adopted, striking out the item pro- viding S9,600 for the expenses of the commercial feed inspectors. The bill then was passed as amended.
 The bill then was returned to the house for consideration, and upon mo- tion of Representative Bonnie Davis of Lafayette, the house refused to con cur in the amendment, as is shown by the house journal. Through an error of house clerk, however, the amend ment was enormously marked "con- Icurred in" instead of "non-concurred in.' The senate journal does not show that the bill ever again was acted apon.
 If the bill should be invalid, it would be because the same bill in all it's parts was not passed by both houses, the senate having passed the bill in amended form and the house having passed the bill without the amendment.
 No one seems to know why the S9,-I 600 expense item was struck out in the senate. Officials says is is plain that without the appropriation for in- spectors' expenses, all other items would become unnecessary.
 Several senators declared, at the time, that they voted to adopt the amendment through misunderstood ling, and would vote to strike it out when the bill was returned from the house Other senators declare the sen ate did strike out the amendment, but