Weekly journal-miner., 1915-08-11
VETO SUSTAINED IN
 16 OUT OF 41 CASES

mandamus to compel payment O.
 claims by State Auditor Callaghar
 was signed and transmitted to tho
 auditor late yesterday afternoon. The
 court announces three general con-
 clusions of law: first, that the gov
 ernor's veto of the repeating clauses
 where the amount appropriated was
 approved is not in effect; second, that the veto was constitutional as to
 those items appropriating money
 which were disapproved in their en-
 tirety; and third that the governors
 veto of those sections repeating prev
 ious existing laws, without making
 money appropriation, is sustained A careful analysis of the courts de
 cision was at once begun by State
 Auditor Callaghan and Attorney w.
 E. Ryan, who announced last night
 after comparing the various sections
 with the findings of the court that
 the legislative appropriations had
 been sustained in 25 cases in which
 the governor had vetoed the repeating
 clauses, and that the governors veto
 had been upheld and the statutory appropriations restored by the ruling in 16 cases.
 No decision had been reached last night as to whether the case will be taken up to the supreme court for further interpretation. It was stated by Auditor Callaghan that further conference would be held today. No decision may be reached in the mat ter before tomorrow.
 Under the terms of the courts de cision, it was pointed out last night there appear to be certain incon- sistencies, which leave the auditor in doubt as to the authority under which he is to pay certain claims Among these are the claims relating to the salary of the state engineer, the cit izen member of the board of control, and an expense claim of the state en- gineering department for books. The court in its decision directs the au ditor to pay the claims mentioned under the section of the appropria ton bill, or under the provision of the revised statutes, 1913. The fact that the auditor is directed to pay the claims under either authority, it is stated, leaves him in doubt as to just what authority applies to each of the claims. The action of the court in sustaining the veto of the governor as applied to certain pro- visions of section 51, and not to oth- CTS, was another matter considered carefully at the conference last night to the first rule laid down by the court, it was pointed out, the governor could not veto part of a section. His veto of an entire section had been sustained in rules two and three, but his disapproval of the re pealing clauses had not been allowed to stand.
 The general conclusions of law au- nounced by the court follow:
 1. That in all cases where in house bill No. as designated in the com plaint and application herein, the governor has by his veto approved of the money appropriated, and dis approved of the item directing that such money so appropriated should be made in lieu of all previous statu- tory appropriations and not in addi- 1 ton thereto, the action of the legis- Iature in the appropriation of the amount of money so approved by the governor constitutes an appropriation for the purpose designated for the ensuing two fiscal years, and for such !! years is substitute for any appro- priation made by general statute making continuous appropriations for the same purpose.
 2. In all cases where the legisla- ture has by house bill No. } made an of money, and as to the sum appropriated has directed l that it shall be in lieu of all previous | statutory appropriations, and not in i thereto, or in such item has directed that any previous statutes should be repealed, and where in such cases the governor has vetoed the entire item, including not only the amount of money appropriated, but the direction as to the substitution or 1 repeal, the court finds as a matter of 1 law, that the governor was within his constitutional right in exercising his l veto as to such item; and the money | thereby sought to be appropriated, as well as the direction covering the sub for or repeal of, previous laws, is stricken from house bill No. 3 because of the disapproval thereof by the governor.
 }. In all cases where the legisla- ture by house bill No. has attempt | cd to repeal previous existing laws. l