Arizona republican., 1915-07-02

so, for the reason that the province of a veto is to destroy and net to create legislation.
 The governor cannot veto any thing but an item of appropriation. He may veto an item which is the result of the repeal of d continuing appropriation and the adoption of a substitute appropriation. but he can not veto the repeal cf an appropria- t.on. because said repeal in itself does not constitute an item of appropria tIon. but, on the contrary, destroys one"
 Mir. Bullard finds that many Of the items of the appropriation bill are unconstitutional. and for that reason he advises that the auditor withhold payment as to them. For instance. he says that the legislature had no power to create the office of assist ant attorney general. T. provided a salary for a non-existent office and repealed d law that made no appro- priation. The opinion concludes with a list of the appropriations which the auditor may safely recognize. and he says as to the others:
 Except as to the items named ca list of which is given in the opinion.) would not nay out any public moneys affected by the governors veto unless so directed by an order of the court; neither would l pay out any moneys under any continuing statutory appropriation"
 The following appropriations are probably null. though they are not specifically declared SO in the opin- ion:
 For the chief clerk and the assist ant chief clerk of the Incorporating department of the corporation com mission.
 For the salary of the assistant at torney general; for the. office eX- senses of the attorney general; for the contingent expenses of the of- flee of the attorney general; for ad- dit.onal counsel for the office of at torney general for the defense of the so per cent law.
 The tax commission is stripped of everything except the salaries of the members. No appropriations are left for the travelling expenses of the commissioners or for the office ex penses of the commission. There is no appropriation for other persons" those two words having been intended to cover experts employed by the commission and perhaps lawyers. to fight the legal battles of the com mission For this purpose the com mission asked for an appropriation of $6000. The legislature agreed upon $500 a year. The governors veto wiped that out. it being his be- lief that thereby the commission could
 
 ton of the statute creating the com mission The appropriation for the expenses of the commission sitting as a board of equalization Is also void.
 No provision is left for the tra- yelling or other expenses Of the board of control and thus there can be no gasoline for the White Car" or for the salary of the chauffeur or for the payment for repairs The provision for the payment of the salary of the deputy game warden out of the fees received by that office is rendered void.
 The appropriation for the main tenance of the national guard is also void and as has been mentioned. the appropriation for the state school fund
 No demand has been made upon the auditor under the general appro- priation law yet and no test will be precipitated until such a demand is made. If it should be started in the superior court of this county, it was stated yesterday the auditor would be governed by the judgment of that couEt and not insist upon opinion by the supreme court.
 -O----
 When the first straw hat appeared in 17S4 it was ridicnled but after