Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-06-04

budget. Il raises the question of
whether all the so-calIed "appropria-
lions" made by either the city councils
or the county councils are not illegal for
the two reasons that they have not
heretofore been set up In the budget
and thereby subjected to public remon-
STRANGE, and that they are appropriations
from a fund that does not exist, as all
money in the treasury is held in trust
the budget
WILL HAVE FAR
REACHING EFFECT.
Maintenance OF this theory Of the tax
law will have a far-reaching effect on the
several taxing corporations Of the State.
For example, in Indianapolis the law
could be held TO prevent the city coun-
ell from transferring money from any
one of the funds created by the budget
to any other fund, or from appropriating
any money from the city treasury. In
effect, 1t might be held that the budget
is the only legal appropriation possible
and that no money can exist in the
city treasury which Is subject to appro
priation by the council or subject to
expenditure for any other than the pur-
poses shown "in detail" in the budget.
BOOKER EXPLAINS
HIS SIDE OF CASE.
Applying his theory Of the tax law to
the suit for injunction against the county
officials and the chief accountant Of the
board Of accounts, Mr.. Rocker says:
The budget system is a newly i'm
provised affair. 1t was first introduced
into the laws OF Indiana, insofar as 1t
affects any issue In this suit by the act
Of July 81, 1920. (Acts 1920 page 164)
| The act Of July 81. 1920, contained an
emergency clause, which forecloses doubt
that the budget system became effective
of July 81. 1890 (Acts 1920, page 164.)
levies of 1920 were made on the plan of
the budget system. We, therefore, no
longer have a general fund. Section 3 Of
the Act Of July 81, 1920, contains the
following provisions:
The several tax levies shall be es-
tablished by the legal officers Of any
municipal corporation after the formula
| ton and publication by them of a BUD
| GET. on forms prescribed by the State
board of accounts, SHOWING IN DE-
TAIL THE MONEY PROPOSED TO BE
| EXPENDED DURING THE Sue
| CEEDING YEAR, the valuation of all
taxable property within the Jurisdiction
and the rate of taxation which it is pro-
posed to establish, and after a public
hearing within the jurisdiction at which
any taxpayer shall have the right to be
heard thereon. TEN DAYS NOTICE BY
| PUBLICATION OF SUCH BUDGET AND
OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING .
SHALL BE REQUIRED. The several
tax levies as established by the proper
legal officers OF any municipal corpora
ton SHALL STAND AS THE
TAX LEVIES OF SUCH MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR NEXT
SUCCEEDING FOR THE PURPOSES
SET OUT IN THE REPORT OF THE
COUNTY AUDITOR AS CERTIFIED TO
THE STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMITS
SIONERS, subject to the right of APP
peal, etc. -
DEMONSTRATES GENERAL
FUND Is OBSOLETE
by the amendatory act Of March 10,
1921 (Acts 1921. page 64O) there were
changes made in the appellate provi-
sions of the budget act, but none of
these changes affect the provisions Of
the law as above quoted. 1t stands con-
elusive, therefore, that the Legislature
has by this act taken away from the
State examiner tie power to make certi-
fcates for the payment Of warrants out
OF the general fund of the county; like
wise the Legislature has taken away
from the county auditor the power to
issue warrants payable out Of the gen.
eral fund Of the county; likewise the
Legislature has taken away from the
county treasurer the custody of a gen
eral fund out OF which any warrants may
be paid What then is tho situation?
May the field examiners be paid out OF
the levy specifically imposed for the
maintenance of the Marion Circuit Court?
That levy was pruned down in the be
ginning and 1t was made on the certif-
cate of those officers who knew the
proper charges and expenses Of the
Marion Circuit Court. And as the field
examiners cannot. be paid out OF the
funds specifically provided to maintain
the Marion Circuit Court, so the field
examiners cannot be paid out Of any
other specific fund Of the county, and as
the budget system provides no funds
other than specific funds, and each of
these is q trust fund which cannot be
diverted, the old law is destroyed which
allowed the States examiner to require
the payment Of his field force out of
the general fund of the county.
Not only could those trust funds, If
diverted to the payment Of field examin
ers, be pursued and recovered back to
those who had got them in violation of
the trust. but further than that penalties
are imposed on any officer who shall be
guilty of violating any provisions of this
act, etc. (Acts 1919, page SD and the
official bond Of the delinquent officer
would, of course, be responsible for the
moneys unlawfully paid out.
SHOULD BE THANKFUL
TO ESCAPE PENALTY"
"Mr Fesler and Mr.. Lemcke. and in
deed Mr. Eschbach, with their sureties
should be thankful that the court by it's
injunction in this case will protect them
from the penalties the law imposes for
the violation.
mot only have these safeguards been
taken, but the General Assembly has re-
pealed the law, as will be shown present
ly under which 1t was at one time pre-
tended that a rowing commission was
granted to the State examiner to dis
pose the general funds Of counties. The
repeal of that pretended law was due to
the fact that it was a violation of the
constitution of this State as well as of
the Nation. And this will be shown. 1t
will appear that the State is getting on
safe grounds and all that Is required is
for this court to make that exposition OF
the law which the law demands. More
over, 1T is a familiar principle that sure
ties on an official bond are bound only
within the terms Of the official as pro-
vided by law. 1t would expose sureties
on official bonds to a most unusual peril
If their principals had not duties
which were ultimately fixed by law; If
the duties Of their principals were rowing
duties depending from day to day upon
the caprice of the State board OF ac-
counts. Such a situation cannot be con-
ceived. If such situation were in reality