The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1915-05-06
Auditor Handlin Viii
Hold UP Allowance
Vouchers.
COMPLAINTS MADE
Appropriations In Addition To
Salaries Have Been Called
Unconstitutional.

Pierre, S.. D.-That the supreme
court should pass upon the validity
of monthly expense vouchers which
the legislature has granted to the
court and the governor, is the CON
tention of State Auditor Handlin
who announces that he will decline
to issue such vouchers for the frs
OF May and If the court officials or
the governor are not satisfied with
his action, they will need bring suit
to collect, as he does not believe
these appropriations are constitution
al. Some time ago Auditor Handlir
submitted this same issue to the state
legal department and received ar
opinion that the appropriation is a
valid one, and not in conflict with the
constitution, but he apparently is
not satisfied with this and says no
further cash will be paid without 9
suit.
1t is claimed by opponents of these
expense allowances that they increase
the salaries of state officials in vic
lation of the constitutional provision
fixing these salaries and prohibiting
any perquisites. The legislature frs
made this expense allowance to mem.
bers of the supreme court and it was
found they would accept it. In tho
last legislature the allowance wa
further extended by giving the gov
ernor 500 a month, instead of $50
allowed at the previous session. a
good deal has been said against the
practice by South Dakota people
since the legislature adjourned and
Auditor Handlin evidently wants thu
supreme court to rule formally on
the question.
What the Law Says.
A representative called upon Au-
ditor Handlin and received the fol-
lowing interview:
$50 you are holding up the $50
expense money Of the supreme court
judges. What are your reasons for
doing this.
well there are many causes why
we are refusing to pay the suprem.
court judges the $50 expense money
which they have been receiving for
the past few years. The chief amonf
them is the question Of the consti-
tutionality and whether or not tn
form of vouchers submitted for thu
$50 a month expenses is sufficient
to cover the requirements of chapter
1S9 of the 1909 session laws"
"How about the opinion handed
you by the attorney general? Did he
not advise you to pay these vouchers.
stating they were constitutional AND
proper charges against the state?"
Eyes, such a N opinion was given
this office, but in view of the fact
that there seems to be a question
about the legality of these claims,
propose to find out. if possible, wheth
er they are legal or not.
81 do not want to De arbitrary.
want to be right. OF course, when
we accepted the attorney generals
opinion a short time after entering
this office, we did what we consider
ed our duty. But in looking into the
fatter since. we are compelled to say
that a doubt exists in our mind as
to whether or not these expense
vouchers are a violation of not only
the constitution but of Chapter lS9
or the 1909 session laws. Section rs
says, in part:
Ono warrant shall be issued by
the state auditor, for the payment of
SuN tAtVtllS0 VI se''
any officer or employee of the state
Of South Dakota or of any office. of
such officer or employee shall pre-
sent to the state auditor an itemized
statement and account Of such ex-
penses. duly verified under oath, to
the effect that the amount SO itemiz-
ed, have by such officer or employee
been actually paid out and expended
A.. at T.. 1n,-r,J -, /, oF tho limited
States, which statement and verifi-
cation shall be filed in the Office OF
the state auditor before the issuance
ceipt or receipts to such ofhcer or
employee, from the person or persons
to whom such payment have peer
made, which said receipt or recelpts
shall be presented to and filed Win
the state auditor beofre the Issuance
of any warrant; and the auditor shali
REQUIRE the items in said voucher TO
sub-divided to the smallest expen
diture in each and shall refuse to
issue warrant upon same untal sucn
subdivision Is made
'sFrom this section 1t would appear
TO me that the $50 per month woul
have to be itemized and that no on1-
cial had incurred an expense unless
he had paid u money ior "ni9n
he should have a receipt.
.In article 21, section 2, of the
constitution. after fixing the salar-
lie. OF the judges and other elective
officers, says:
".They shall receive no fees or
~pe.ua::s,tes, whatever, for the per.
formanc; of any duties connected
with ti.oi' office. 1t shall not be com
petent TO- the legislature to increase
the Sc of the officers named in
,his lie 'cepu as herein provid-
ed.
It appear ta me that the consti-
tution very ..inly says here thai
they shall receive no extra fees fol
dom gwhat is their duty. Then II II
is their duty to move to the capito'
they are entitled to no extra pay. II
it is not their duty to move to the
capital, they are not entitled 70 the