Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1915-12-23
GOVERNORS VETO OF
APPROPRIATION BILL
UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL

directed principally against certain
clauses Of the bill which might he
called lieu clauses because of the
fact that they were intended to act in
place of passages of former laws which
had covered practically the same thing,
and were designed to prevent double
appropriations In the finding of the
superior court, Mr.. Callaghan was up
held in his contentious that the chief
executive had been in error when he
directed his Vetoes against these lieu
clauses. the court holding that when
he (HunD had vetoed the lieu clauses.
he had destroyed the whole bill. In
this respect, the finding favored CAL
laghan. but in the main, the lower
courts verdict was decidedly against
him. Desiring to further contest the
matter. Callaghan carried the case I"
the Supreme court but yesterdays dc
cision was modified in only a small
and technical way from the finding
Of the superior tribunal.
While the funds of nearly all of
the state departments had been some
what interfered with by Callaghan 5
.ttitude in the matter OF the pay
ment of the warrants, there were tour
departments of the state organization
winch ildu bt'tIl Idb4Ltl iA''i "a ~ ~
auditors refusal to pay their claims,
viz. the adjutant generals office CMil-
ftarv dcpartment). the tax commission,
the board of control and certain
branches of the state corporation com
mission. In speaking of the decision
from the standpoint Of his office Eol.
| Charles Harris last night said thar
/ fSlls amounting to perhaps $4,000 had
bcen Diling up i'm his office since June
1875. and all Of the expenses incident
to the calling of the state troops to
tthe Clifton district for the strike
duty have been held up, pending the
decision of the case. 1t is understood
that these claims, together with all
bills which ave been incurred in other
offices, will be paid some time within
the next few days.
! Following are some Of the salient
, excerpts from the decision of the su-
preme cout, which have important
/ bearing on the attitude of that body
in the matter:
! The defendants contention that the
) performance Of the duty commanded
! by the writ is one which deprives him
! of the right to exercise a discretion
! is without merit. All of said claims
are such as the law recognizes as
]
the defendants duty to examine the
claim with reference to the law au-
/ thorizing it. compare il with the
voucher and draw his warrant or is
sue his certificate as the case may be
as the law prescribes. As used in
reference to the claims authorized by
} some statute the word audit means
/ to verify If used in reference to an
! account it would then have a broader
meaning and imply the exercise of a
discretion in rejecting and allowing
items Of the account, yet in such
sense it would not mean a judicial
! act.
The appellant contends that stat
utes directing the payment Of
claims out Of the general, or other
designated fund, are not legal appro-
priationS unless some specific amount
| Of such fund is set aside 10y such or
| some other statute for the specific
purpose Of meeting such payments.
| In each instance relative to claims Of
I Class ]. supra. the statute applicable
to the several claims" authorizes and
directs the auditor to draw his war
rant in favor of the claimant Para
graph IS. Civil Code. 1913, upon which
the appellant largely relies, provides
that no warrant shall be drawn by
the auditor unless the money
has been previously appropriated by
law" is the general rule to he OBJ
| served by the auditor. but when, as
here, a statute is dealing with a spe-
cial subject, and in relation to such
subject directs the auditor to draw
his warrant and makes no exception
Continued on Page Thrce)