Bisbee daily review., 1915-08-04
COURT THROWS LIGHT
ON HUNTS EFFORTS TO
INCREASE EXPENSES

Attorney General Billiard Says It
Is First Case on Record of
a Governor Using Veto to Add
to Costs.
. . . . . =
. SOME OF THE HIGH SPOTS =
. This is the first occasion on .
. record in the United States of a =
. governor attempting to use the =
. veto power to increase an appro- =
> priation measure" =
. Continuing appropriations are =
> not favored by the law. They are .
. one Of the most insidiOus yehi- =
. Giles Of fraud and are absolutely =
. forbidden by the constitutions of =
. ten states"
. The veto power is given to
. act as a check on the legislature, Z
. not to enable the making of a Z
, technical raid on the state treas Z
, ury." Z
. The veto power is. in its nat 4
. ure, destructive-never creative.
. its purpose is to cut down appro-
, priations, never to raise them
IF this bill and veto be upheld 4
. there are enough double appro- 4
prations to add 100000 to the 4
, tax burden of the people of the 4
. state"
Gov Hunt, in his message,
distinctly expresses his desire to
= increase certain appropriations"
, The Court Does an appro-
> priation Of necessity mean an ex- ,
, penditure p"
. Counsel Not of NECESSITY,
, your honor, but there is no re- I
. corded instance in the history of
, these United States when it did
, not"
, From address of Geo. Bullard) Z
. . o . .
PHOENIX, Aug 3.-The legal bal
lie over the state appropriation bi
ana its partial veto by Gov Hunt, wa
begun i'm the Superior court of Mar
copa county before Judge Stanford
Former Attorney-General Georg
Purdy Billiard and Attorney Williar
q. Ryan appeared for State Audito
Callaghan, and George n. Stonema
represented the nominal plaintiff
Jesse f. Boyce.
The case was brought to compel tn
/ state auditor to issue vouchers fc
| certain items OF state expenditure
and the argument was technically o
a demurrer to the application for tn
| writ.
The case excited no general after
ton and there was no one in the coul
room but the attorneys and half a do
l en- people interested i'm the outcom
when the arguments were begun.
In his opening argument Attorne
Bullard recited the passage of the al
/ preparation bill and its attempted VI
to by the governor. He separated tn
| grounds of attack on the bill into tw
distinct phases The first goes to Oh
| question of whether the governor ma
repeal parts of items in the bill G
whether he must accept or repeal a
item in its entirety. The second
as To the effect Of continuing appr
priatiOns which the attorney condemn
ed as wrong and vicious.
He cited cases to show that the go
ernor must accept or reject the bi
item by item and that he cannot SCI
arate an item" into its componeI
parts and thus make of himself poy
er superior to the legislature. II
claimed that the general rule of la
is that the court will construe the G.
ercise of power in favor of the legisl
ture and against the veto. He sal
| that under the territorial consututio
il had been held that the gOvernC
must accept or reject bill as a who'll
/ Under the present constitution b
may veto some 'items" and approx
others, but the attorney claimed tha
this must be construed with regar
TO the items as whole.
Ha aided that there were no pc
sonalities involved nor any polite
lie admitted that the governor ma
have meant well enough, but elaine
that he had exceeded his power.
Attorney Ryan took a ground SOM
what different from his associate
claiming that the attempt to veto r,
suited in the whole bill becoming nu
and void and of no effect whatsoeye
\ His argument concluded: we urg
therefore, that the appropriation bi
never did become law either in Who'll
or in part, and that plaintiff must II
sort TO those prior laws which ma
contain proper language creating an
appropriations tor any relief in thi
case"
II Attorney Stoneman made a brilliaI
argument on the opposite side. II
reviewed a mass OF authorities an
claimed that the governor had acte
entirely within his rights and that ID
srnt. .,-ar gttFfFafaut N