The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1915-06-11
WHICH IS RIGHT?
Idaho Review

Whether the whims of Governor
Alexander or the plain provisions of
the state constitution are supreme in
Idaho is one of the questions to be
settled in the courts within the year.
This matter was brought to the
front while the legislature was still
in session, and Immediately after its
adjournment, by the governor assum-
ing the power to cut appropriation
items in two, approving one part and
vetoing another.
The constitution confers on the gov
ernor the undoubted right to veto a
whole item, but nowhere in that in
strument is to be found warrant for
vetoinR part of an item. If this
power were confirmed in the governor
1t would make him an autocrat with
power to nullify the work of the law
makers.
Again the point is forced to the
front and at this particular time by
the distribution from the Syms- ork
press in Boise of the compiled session
laws.
In these laws as published the ac-
ton of Governor Alexander in trying
to cut items in two is wholly ignored
The acts are published just as they
passed the legislature. There is no
notation at the bottom such as 'ap-
proved in part" or "disapproved in
part. There is nothing to raise the
legal point that must be settled BY
the courts if the governor persists.
At the bottom of the King Hill law
is the simple notation, Became eff
fective Mar. 3, 1915" nothing more.
This course was followed by Secre-
tary of State Baker on the advice of
Attorney General Peterson. This Of
fetal holds to the position that the
action of the governor in cutting items
in two is null and void, but that the
point is not to be discussed in the
published laws but in the courts.
In the case of the King Hill, the
Legislature passed a special bill ap-
propriating $4,000 to be expended
on the project in the two years. The
governor cut the item to $4,000. In
the case of the Gem Irrigation Dis
trict, the legislature appropriated $40
43Z.O7 in one item. The governor
cut this to $23,43207. A number of
smaller items were treated in the
same way.
Discussing this matter the Lewis
ton Tribune says that this conflict of
authority will lead to confusion. 1t
says in part:
The laws which the governor We
toed in part and which are now given
to the world as laws becoming eff
fective through executive failure to
act, are in all instances appropria-
tion laws. The contention of the
encouragement is in effect that the
governor under the constitution was
without authority to veto an appro-
priation in part, and that where this
was attempted the law stands as
though approved in full. However
apparently Mr.. Peterson did not feel
inclined to chance the publication OF
the law with the date of the approval
1t is expected that this will bring
about considerable confusion. When
the amount of an appropriation ap,
proved by the governor has been ex.
hausted, 1t is expected that an effort
| VIII be made to prevent the drawing
OF additional funds from that account
until the legislature has made another
appropriation"
When this was called to the atten
ton OF Acknowledgement Peterson. h,
said:
There is not the slightest cause fol-
CONFUSION or misunderstanding here
Secretary of State Barker, acting un
der advice from this Office, assumed
nothing whatever. In the published
session laws he just stated the fact.
simply that the laws became effect
i've. 1t is not stated that the act
were approved or disapproved in part
There is no reflection on any of
hcial; there is no comment made.