The Sidney herald., 1956-04-12

lief might he available there, and
this seemed likely under a liberal
Interpretation.
But 1t never got to that. A small
group of men, most OF them state
senators, proposed, off the record,
TO underwrite any deficit there
might be. In the end, they had
to advance but relatively little OF
the money they had pledged. The
legislature reimbursed them.
When a condition like the cur
rent university problem arises, 1t
is easy enough to say that, thru
authority of a 1887 Legislative act,
the board of examiners should
approve expenditures exceeding
the appropriation. But the 1887
act can be questioned on conSd-
tutional grounds.
Some of us are apt to overlook
the very pertinent fact that in
our system of government the
power to levy taxes and control
the expenditure of their proceeds
is reserved to the people through
the Legislature. These are not
functions in which the executive
branch shares the initiative.
Regarding appropriations, Sec
ton IL, article IL, of the Mon
tana constitution says:
mo appropriation shall be
made nor any expenditures auth
orized by the legislative assembly
whereby the expenditures during
any fiscal year shall exceed the
total tax then provided for by
law, and applicable to such APP
preparation or expenditure, un-
less the legislative assembly MAX
ing such appropriation shall pro-
vide for levying a sufficient tax,
not exceeding the rate allowed in
section 8 of this article, to pay
such appropriations or expendi-
lures within such fiscal year. This
provision shall not apply to APP
preparations or expenditures to
suppress Instruction, defend the
state, Or assist in defending the
United States in time of war. No
appropriation of public moneys
shall be made for a longer term
than two years.
AS the university fiscal problem
can hardly be clasSed as in
volving instruction, defense of
the state, or assisting in defend
ing the United States in time
of war, there appears to be little
that can be done until another
legislature has a look, nothwith-
standing the 1887 act, amended
in 1858, permitting the board of
examiners to approve deficit ex-
penditureS in certain circum-
stances.
In general terms, this act pro-
vides that limited deficits may
be incurred in unforeseen and
unanticipated emergencies result
ing from increase in the number
of inmates at state institutions or
in enrolment at university units.
There is some weight of law in
support of the contention that an
emergency is not unforeseen or
unanticipated if the legislature
has considered the probabilities
in making the appropriation. Be
that as it may, it is doubtful
whether the legislature can con-
stitutionally delegate any of its
appropriating power to the execu-
tive department.
And as to emergencies, every
Institution or agency operating
under state law is likely TO reck-
on as an emergency any case
where the available funds are
short of the needs as estimated
by that institution or agency. In
total, these emergency require
mentS could he a staggering sum.
The constitutional restrictions on
levying taxes and appropriating
money are based on long expert
ence, originating in measures
which gradually evolved to curb
the power of the king 30 tax his
subjects without their consent
and to force the monarch to get
the peoples approval TO use the
money derived from these levies.
Conditions have changed in free
governments, but the traditional
principle of control by the people,
through their legislatures, of taxes
and expenditures remains sound.
Perhaps, as in past incidents,
the present fiscal difficulties of
the university units will not prove
SnrIO1IS ,9c coma axpifa1 FOLKS