The Coconino sun., 1923-04-20
SAYS GOVERNORS VETO
OF THE HIGHWAY BILL
is NOT EFFECTIVE

y y
nfent answer the question as TO wheth-
er the attempt of the governor to ve-
to the language below quoted, did in
fact destroy the entire "75 per cent
portion of the State Road Tax Fund,
and thus deprive the counties of their
proportion of that fund under the
statement of facts as follows:
Senate Bill No. 1876 is an appropria,
tion bill known as the Highway Bill"
and as it passed the legislature con-
tanned a provision as follows:
Seventy (75) per cent of such
state road fund.-, herein provided for
shall be apportioned to the several
counties in the amount to each county
of rs per cent of the taxes collected
under this act by said county, and
such amount shall be subject to be
paid out for the construction, recon-
struction, repair, improvement and
maintenance of public highways, roads
and bridges in the manner as in this
act provided for within such county
upon the authority and under the di-
rection of the county board of super
visors of such county and the state en-
gineers who are hereby charged with
such responsibility" :
The governor disapproved of that
language, but left the entire amount
provided for in the entire bill intact,
with am evident s intent that such
amount be expended entirely for state
highways, under state supervision and
controls 4ig s}9 ~
The veto power of the governor is
derived from the third subdivision of
Section 7, Article ", of the state con-
stitution, which reads:
"If any bill presented to the COVER
nor contains several items of approz
priations of money, he may object to
one or more such items while approv-
ing other portions of the bill"
Senate Bill No. 156 apparently con-
tanned Several items of appropria-
in the governor to object to zone or
more items" applied to that measure,
but the extent of the use of that pow
er, and its effect, depends upon what
constitutes an 'item of appropriation"
in bill of that class. The question
asked, has been the subject of de-
cision by the supreme court of Ari-
zona in the case of Callaghan VS..
Boyce, II Arizona reports, where the
court on pages 458 and AGO of that
report, says:
''1tem," therefore, is used synonom-
ously with Subject" distinct or sep
arate parts" and an objection and dis
approval by the governor of an item
or several items of appropriations of
money has reference to the distinct
subject or part for which the appro-
priation is made and all its Incidents"
In Pennsylvania, a similar provision
was held to mean, "the particulars, the
details, and distinct and several parts
of the appropriation and is used ms
terchangeably in the. same sense, with
the word part"
Z And the court applied the above
definition to the attempt of the gov-
ernor to approve an amount appro.
priated for the salary of an officer,
and at the same time disapprove a
direction of the legislature that such
a salary should be in lieu u@of all prior
statutory appropriations, and said: i
"In so far as this item of appropria-
ton concerns the salary Of the citi-
zen members of the board of control
the language quoted and disapproved
was clearly matter Incidental to the
appropriation and an inseparable part
of the item. The disapproyal of such
inseparable part is without effect; the
main part of the item having been
approved, as a necessary deduction
from the rule stated"
So applying the above decision to
the question under consideration it
would seem that when the legislature
made an appropriation and in direct
connection Herewith, used language
as to how seventy-fiye per cent of
that appropriation should be divided
and used by the counties, the governor
was without power to separate the one
from the other, the object and pur-
pose of use, could not be separated
from the money to be used, the one
being directly connected and inciden-
tai to the other, and mseparably so.
Hence the opinion is, that the disap-
proyal OF. the goyernorof the language
above first quoted was ineffective,
and the same effect should be given
to Senate Bill 156, that would have
been given without such attempted
disapproval. - Arizona Taxpayers
Magazine.