Arizona republican., 1915-12-24
The Appropriation Law Decision

Though lawyers may still differ the sound
ness Of the opinion of the supreme in the
ter of the general appropriation bill. the opinion
serves public policy. There was sufficient vague
ness of the law in dispute to interpre-
taton which shall henceforth be known as the law.
It is settled that neither the legislature nor
governor right in their handling of the appro-
praUon bill that henceforth Doth branches OF
the legislature viii avoid particular conflict
A contrary opinion by the would have
made necessary the holding of another session OF
the Legislature within year Of the time when an
other Legislature will in regular session There
is general impression that enough money has been
spent the second legislature.
The embarrassment which been caused by
the holding up of the appropriated funds has been
offset by the securing OF definite pronouncement
by the supreme court and has been much more than
offset by directing public attention the evil Of
continuing appropriations against which The Repub-
Hc5n inveighed throughout all the sessions of the
legislature last winter and spring On this subject
we quote from the opinion of the court:
The appellant argues with much force that sta
making annual continuing appropriations of the
public revenues are dangerous and tend open the
doors of extravaganza and directly the squan-
dering of the This argument is addressed
to the policy of such laws not the power of the
legislature them. The argument properly
one for the consideration of the legislature for
the courts considerations"
bad enough to conduct public business
without budget system but II is outrageous
provide unlimited appropriations from which count
less commissions and numberess offices draw
without any OF check they have done
the past The litigation now ended has
beneficeHt effect Of holding up to some extent the
usual raid on these continuing appropriations thus
far that whatever waste and extravaganza may
run riot next year, much at least. has already
saved.
ture wipe all these continuing appropriations.
That legislation should be no part appropriation
Legislation but the first bill introduced in each house
should provide for the repeal such statutory ap
preparations 1t would proper for voters who de-
sire curb extravaganza demand pledges from
candidates for the legislature TO support
peaine law for these continuing appropriations
there continual temptation extravaganza.
More thar that the constitution itself should be
so amended TO prohibit sucH continuing appro-
priations for as the supreme court says:
We have been unable, after diligent search to
find any constitutional limitation upon power
Of the legislature to enact continuing appro-
priation laws, and appellant has pointed out none.
Before the constitution adopted such appropra-
ton laws existed books without
question, and at the time of statehood a number OF
such laws in force. Section of Article XIII,
State Constitution continued in force An laws Of
tho Territory of Arizona IN force. not repug-
nitnt 10 TINS CONSTITUTION, until they expire by ther
limitation altered repealed by law
Without doubt Paragraph 3571. Revised Statutes of
Arizona, 1901, carried forward law in force
by the said provision the constitution,
so understood ~ the First State Legislature which
lifsed the said Paragraph 2571 inserted the
Civil Code of 1913 Paragraph AGO thereof"
something the people It
always certain that legislatures will do what
IS expected of them and order that the taxpayers
may he the safe side they should initiate an
amendment the constitution eliminate even
this relic of the territorial days.