or else veto the entire generalappropriation act. :Thishe can seldomaffordto do.
The constitutional limitationnow under consideration was aimad at praventingsuch situations.T,hiswas statedby the Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 5 (V-129)
SupremeCourt of PennsylvanIa,a State which has a similarcon- stitutionalprovision,in Commonwsalthv. Barustt,1% Pa. 161, 48 Atl. 976 (lgol),as followsz . . . by joininga number of differ& subjectsin one bill the governor was put under compulsionto ac- cept sons enactmentsthat hs could not approve,or to defeatthe whole, includingothersthat he thought desirableor even necessary. Such bills, popularly called *omnibusbills,'became a cryingevil, not ouly from the confusionand distractionof the legislative mind by the jumblingtogetherof incongroussubjects, but stillmore by the facilitythey affordedto cor- rupt combinations of minoritieswith differentinter- ests to force the passageof bills with provisions which could mver succeedif they stood,onthsirsepa- rate merits. So,~omon was this practicethat it got a popularname. universallyunderstood,as ~logrolling.' A kill more objectionabls~practice grew up, of putting what is known as a 'rider'(that is, a new~andunrelated enactmentor provision)on ths ~appropriationbill~, and' thus'kokrcingtheexecutiveto approve'obnoxioils legis- lation,or bring the wheels of.ths governmentto a stop for want of funds. Thesewere some ofthe evilswhich the later changesin the constitution were intendedto nm?dy* . .."
Again with specificreferenceto the reasonfor this type of constltutlonailimitation in the case of appropriation . bills,tha SuprktsCourt ofOregon +a:
The evidentpurposeof this provisionwas to preventmsttersforeignto the generalpurpo* of ap- propriationbills being attachedto them as riders, therebytakingadvantageof the necessityof the state for money to defrayits currentexpensesand to pay its officersto pass measurasthat perhapswould other- wise have been defeated." Evsnhoffv. State Industrial AccidantCommission,154 .Pac.106, 111 (1915).
Three changeswere made in the wordingof this Article IJAthe c~stituth of 1876. The provisionwas moved from the GeneralProvisionssectionof the Constitutionto the Iegisla- tive Sectionwhere it became Section35 of Article III, with the wording it has today, It is quoted in full on page 1 of'this opinion. The reasonsforthethree changesare readilyapparent. The exceptionmade for appropriation bills was to insurethat no courtwould hold the appropriationfor each subjector account Hon. Allan Shivers,Page 6 (V-3254)
a separategeneralsubjectand as a resulti-squire a multiplic- ityofappropriationbills;audths savingclausswas addsdto preventthe strikingdownofths whole ofths Act. The other basic chauge,from the use of ths word "object"to "subject," has been explainedas ping an attemptto m&e the whole provi- sion less restrictive. The generalpurposeand objectof the constitutionalprovisionremainsdths ssms.
In dealingwith Section35 of ArticleIII, a ruls of liberalinterpretation has alwaysbeen applied. Ths tendency of the dscislonsis to construethe constitutioual provisions onthis subjectliberallyrathsrthanto embarrasslegislation by a construction whose strictnessis -cessary to the accom- pllshmsntof the beneficialpurposefor which it was adopted.5 But at the same tims the Court has been carefulto point out, as was orlgiuallydons by Chief JusticeHemphlllin Cannonv. Hemphill;7 Tax. 184, 208 (1851),that t&is provisioncanuotbe ignoredand thus nullified.
,Withreferenceto generalappropriation bills, ths SupremeCourt of Texas has held that "the appropriatingoffunds to be paid from the StateTreasuryis's ~mibject~~withiu he mesuingof ArticleIII, Ssdion 35, of oul.constitution." 2 It is clear frouths terms of the constitutional provisionthat geueralappropriationbillsmaycontainmorethan ens subject of this sanbsnature,i.e., appropriations for the variousde- partxfsntsand accounts. The exceptlouof generalappxopriation bills from the constitutionalprohibitiou againstbills.contaiu- ing more than one subjectis a