Arizona republican., 1915-08-03
ITS LEGITIMACY
 IS QUESTIONED
Court Announces That His Decision as to the Valid itv of Bill Would Be Handed Down Within Three Days

Tt is more important said Attorney W F. Ryan. concluding his remarks yesterday afternoon before Judge stan ford on the appropriation bill, that the prerogatives of the various branches of government be fixed, that their powers be limited by a correct construction Of the law than that the state escape the temporary inconvenience incident to declaration of the invalidity of the gen eral appropriation bill The latter in convenience may be overcome shortly but the perpetuation of the eNtraoroin- ary powers which have been assumed in the vetoing of this bill is an evil and will descent to trouble posterity.
 The hearing of the case of Jesse Povce. assignee of several claims against the state under the appropria ton bill against State Auditor Calla ghan was begun yesterday morning, George Stoneman representing the plaintiff and George Purdy Bullard, former attorney general and Mir. Ryan representing the auditor. It came up on a motion to quash writ of manda- mus.
 Notwithstanding the great interest that had been taken in the matter there was small attendance in the court loom at all times of the day At the conclusion there were hardly a half dozen persons present.
 The argument was opened by MT. Bullard who attacked the power of the governor to veto the repeating clauses of the bill. those intended to put an end to statutory appropriations whose evil was so great the speaker said, that they were forbidden by the constitution
 
 ton of this state. said Mir Bullard, could the governor veto a part of an item of appropriation as he had at tempted to do without invalidating the entire item.
 Such a power of the veto. said Mir. Bullard had never before been exer- cised in the whole history of govern ment. It was a use of it that had never been contemplated-tO increase appro- priations rather than to limit them. The veto power" said he "is given to serve as a check upon extravaganza by the legislature and not to facilitate a raid upon tine treasury. The power is in its very nature limiting. destructive and not creative" MT. Bullard said that if the bill with the vetoes that have been made should be upheld there would be enough double appropriations tO add SsOO.0O to the appropriations. The court asked whether an appropria- ton of necessity meant an expenditure. Mir Bullard replied that it did not of necessity. but he added that there was no recorded instance in which an ap- propriation Ina d not become an expen- diture.
 Whatever doubt. might exist in the mind of the court. said MT BulIard regarding the conflicting powers of the governor and the legislature under rules of law must be resolved in favor of the legislature. In support of his various contentious Mir. Bullard intro duced a mass of citations.
 MT. StOneman upheld the power of the governor to interpose the veto as he had done in this case for said he if the contentious of the respondent were sustained the constitutional linn itations and provisions may be disre- Rarded and laws which should proper ly stand alone as one act. containing only one subject of legislation and which could never under other condi- tions receive the approval of the gov ernor might be carried into effect by the simple expedient of placing them in a general appropriation bill and saying, a had been done in this case, that be- cause they had found a place in the general appropriation bill the governor has no right to veto"
 Later. replying to this view, Mir Ryan pointed out that the matter which the legislature had sought to repeal related to the very subjects which had
 
 pa