The copper era and Morenci leader. [volume] (Clifton, Ariz.) 1911-1929, 1915-08-06

Continuing appropriations are not
of the most insidious vehicles of fraud
and are absolutely forbidden by the
constitution of ten states
| ''The veto power is given to act as
check on the legislature, not to en-.
able the making of technical raid
on the state treasury"
The veto power is in its nature,
destructive-never creative, it's puf<
pose is to cut down appropriations,
never to raise them
''iif this bill and veto be upheld
there are enough double appropriar
tions to add 100000 to the tax burden
OF the people of the state
Gov. hunt in his message, dis
tinctly expresses his desire to in
crease certain appropriations.
The Court: Does an appropriation
of necessity mean an expenditure?"
| Counsel: Not NECESSITY, your
honor, but there is no recorded in.
stance in the history of these United
OIdIeS when IL O1Q not.
(From the address of Geo. Bullard.)
PHOENIX, Aug. S.-The legal bait
tie over the state APPROPRIATION bill
and its partial veto by Gov. Hunt, was
begun in the Superior court of Mari.
copa county before Judge. Stanford.
Former Attorney General George
Purdy Bullard and Attorney William
E. Ryan appeared for State Auditor
Callaghan, and George N. Stoneman
represented the nominal plaintiff,
Jesse E. Boyce.
The case was brought to compel the
state auditor to issue vouchers for
certain items of state expenditures
and the argument was technically on
demurrer to the application for the
writ.
The case excited no general atten.
tion and there was no one in the court
room but the attorneys and half dog
en- people interested in the outcome
when the arguments were begun.
In his opening argument Attorney
Billiard -ecited the passage of the ap.
preparation bill and its attempted ve-
to by the governor. He separated the
grounds of attack on the bill into two
distinct phases. The first goes to the
repeal parts of items in the bill or
whether he must accept or repeal an
item in its entirety. The second q
as to the effect of continuing appro-
priations which the attorney condemn.
ed as wrong and vicious.
He cited cases to show that the gov.
ernor must accept or reject the bill
item by item and that he cannot sep.
arate an item" into its component
parts and thus make of himself pow.
er superior to the legislature. He
claimed that the general rule of law
is that the court will construe the ex.
ercise of power in favor, of the legisla.
ture and against the veto. He said
that under the territorial constitution
it had been held that the governor
must accept or reject bill as whole
Under the present constitution he
may veto some items" and approve
others, but, the attorney claimed that
this must be construed with regard
to the lens as a whole. Z.
He added that there were no per-
sonalities involved nor any politics.
He admitted that the governor may
nave meant well enough, but claimed
that he had exceeded his power.
Attorney Ryan took a ground some.
what different from his associate,
claiming that the attempt to veto re-
Isulted in the whole bill becoming null
and void and of no effect whatsoever.
His argument concluded: I'VE urge
therefore, that the appropriation bill
never did become law either in whole
or in part, and that plaintiff must re.
sort to those prior laws which may
contain proper language creating any
appropriations for any relief in this
case"
Attorney Stoneman1 made brilliant
argument on the opposite side. He
reviewed mass of authorities and
claimed that the governor had acted
entirely within his rights and that the
veto as announced, was sufficient and
effective. He claimed that a decision
in favor of the motion of demurrer
would result that the constitutional
limitations and provisions may be dis
regarded and laws which should prop
erly stand alone as one act, contain
ing only one subject of legislation,
and which could never, under other
conditions, receive the approval of the
governor, may be carried into effect
by the simple expedient of placing
them in a general appropriation bill
and saying, as been done in this case,
that because they had found place in
an appropriation bill and did not con-
stitute an item of money appropria-
tion, the governor has no right to
veto."
He claimed that if the veto is de-
clared ineffective the plaintiff is still
entitled to his remedy as the prior ap-
preparations would still stand.