Case Name: B. F. BROWN, Appellant, v. L. FLEISCHNER, State Treasurer, Respondent
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1871-09
Citations: 4 Or. 132
Docket Number: 
Parties: B. F. BROWN, Appellant, v. L. FLEISCHNER, State Treasurer, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 132–152

Head Matter:
B. F. BROWN, Appellant, v. L. FLEISCHNER, State Treasurer, Respondent.
Authoeity of the Secbetaby of State in Auditing Claims and Dbawing Wabbants.—The authority of the Secretary of State to audit accounts and draw warrants upon the Treasurer, depends upon the condition that an appropriation has been made by the Legislature for their payment.
State Teeasueee—What Waeeants may be Paid by.—The State Treasurer is presumed to know what appropriations have been made, and he has no right to pay warrants unless drawn upon some specified fund, except when a claim is authorized by law to be paid out of a general contingent appropriation, he may pay the same upon the warrant of the Secretary.
Per Upton, J., dissenting:
Legislative Poweb, Delegation of.—The Legislature cannot delegate the power to legislate, unless it be in the specified exceptional case of creating municipal corporations.
Statute, Amendment of—Appeopbiation Act. — Provisions in a General Appropriation Act cannot operate to transfer the power of auditing claims from one officer to another. Nor can the statute that provides the mode of auditing public accounts be revised and amended by a joint resolution, or by provisos in a General Appropriation Act.
Eund.—Every law that imposes or authorizes a tax must create a fund, unless a fund already exists, into which the tax is to be paid.
Idem.—When a statute provides that the State shall pay for particular services, if there is no special requirement that the claim shall be paid out of a particular or special fund, it will be payable out of the general fund.
Auditing Public Accounts.—The provisions of § 6, p. 622, of the Compiled Laws, requiring the Secretary of State ‘1 to examine and determine the claims of all persons against the State, in cases where provisions for the payment thereof shall have been made by law,” limits the action of the Secretary to cases where the law provides or enacts that the claimant is entitled to be paid by the State, and not to times when payment can be instantly made.
Duty of the Secbetaby of State.—It is the duty of the Secretary of State to audit public accounts in every case where the law has clearly provided that the claimant shall be paid by the State; and if the claim is allowed, to draw his warrant for the amount found due.
Appeal from Marion County.
In §§ 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of the General Appropriation Bill passed by the Legislature in 1870, provisions were made for the redemption of warrants drawn on the penitentiary, incidental, executive and general funds, with a proviso in each case that said warrants should not be paid until after the same had been audited by an investigating commission, provided such commission was appointed. At the same session the Legislature adopted a joint resolution creating such a commission.
Appellant petitioned for a mandamus to compel the payment of certain warrants drawn by the Secretary of State on the penitentiary and incidental fund for the payment of claims which had been disallowed' by the investigating commission. These warrants had been drawn prior to the Act of 1870, to cover expenditures which the Legislature of 1868, failing to pass an appropriation bill, had not provided for.
The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Knight & Lord, for Appellant.
The provisos contained in § § 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of the Act of 1870, are unconstitutional and void. In contemplation of law no such investigating commission as is referred to in those sections has been created. The Constitution has made the Secretary of State auditor by virtue of his office (Constitution, Art. 6, § 2), and in pursuance thereof the Legislature has defined his duties. (Mis. Laws, ch. 1, g § 15-20.) The Legislature has no power to delegate any duty or authority which the Constitution has imposed on the Secretary of State, to any other officer, board, commission or tribunal. (10 Wisc. R. 525.)
The joint resolution creating the investigating commission creates an office. (2 Bouv. Law Diet. 239; 8 Cal. 41.) The Legislature has no power to enact a law the taking effect of which is made to depend on any condition or other authority not provided in the Constitution. (Constitution, Art. 1, § 21; 4 Selden, 483; 2 Iowa, 205.) Laws making appropriations for the salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the State, shall not contain provisions on any other subject. (Constitution, Art. 9, § 7.) Every act must embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. But only so muck of any act shall be void as relates to subjects not embraced in the title. (Constitution, Art. 5, § 20; 14 Louis. R. 9; 32 Ill. R. 181; 11 Ind. R. 199; 4 Metcalf (Ky.) R. 72.) If the void part of a statute can be stricken out and the valid portion will be operative, the former should be rejected and the latter allowed to stand. (1 Cray, 21; 5 Gray, 100; 4 Metcalf, 288; 24 Pick. 361; 3 Nevada, 180.) It is the imperative duty of the Secretary of State to draw his warrant when claims of the character embraced in the warrants in question are presented duly credited and certified. (Mis. Laws, ch. 44, ?¿ 14; Id. ch. 1, §§ 15, 21.) The Treasurer has no power to audit and settle claims against the State and cannot refuse to pay a warrant drawn on him, in legal form, if there are funds in the Treasury appropriated by law for the purposes specified in the warrant. (Mis. Laws, ch. 1, § 28; 2 Metcalf (Ky.) R. 106; 14 Louis. R. 225.)
G. W. Laiuson and O. G. Curl, for Eespondent.
The State Treasurer cannot pay without an appropriation first made by the Legislature, and the Legislature may appropriate or not in its discretion. (Constitution, Art. 9, gg 2, 4, 7; 1 Ogn. 213.)
The Secretary of State has no right to audit claims against the State, except in cases where provision for their payment has been made by law. (Mis. Laws, ch. 1, \ 15.) The warrants in question were drawn prior to the Act of 1870, and before any attempt had been made to appropriate money for their payment. They were therefore void.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Thayer, J.:
This was a proceeding by petition for a writ of mandamus against the State Treasurer, L. Eleischner, to compel the payment of five certain State warrants, drawn in 1869 and 1870 by Samuel É. May, late Secretary of State, upon said Treasurer, who refused payment thereof.
The application for the writ was argued at Chambers before the Judge of the Third Judicial District, Hon. B. P. Boise, and the writ dismissed, from which order the petitioner appeals to this Court.
Many points were discussed in the. argument of this case, by the counsel for both parties, which this Court does not deem it necessary to decide.
It seems from the proceedings herein, that the Legislature which convened in 1868, failed to make appropriations to defray the expenses of the State for the ensuing two years, as required by law.
The only question which this Court has considered it necessary to determine is, whether the State Treasurer was bound to pay warrants drawn upon him by the Secretary of State, when no appropriations have been made by the Legislature for their'payment.
Section 2, of Article IX, of the Constitution of this State reads as follows: "The Legislative Assembly shall provide for raising revenue sufficient to defray the expenses of the State for each fiscal year, and also a sufficient sum to pay the interest on the State debt, if there be any." Section 4, same Article, provides, that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations made by law." Section 7, ditto, provides, "that laws making appropriations for the salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the State, shall contain provisions upon no other subject." The statute, page 621, § 15, subdivision 7 (Mis. Laws, ch. 1, § 15), provides, that among other duties of the Treasurer, "he shall examine and determine the claims of all persons against the State, in cases where provisions for the payment thereof shall have been made by laiu, and to indorse upon the same the amount due and allowed thereon, and from what fund the same is to be paid, and draw a warrant upon the Treasury for the same," etc.
The Secretary of State, like every other officer of the State government, possesses no substantive powers, except such as are enumerated in the Constitution and statute. The provisions of law referred to define and limit his duties, and he can only exercise those duties upon the terms and conditions specified in those provisions. His authority to audit accounts and draw warrants upon the Treasurer, depends upon the condition that an appropriation has been made by the Legislative Assembly for their payment.
The State Treasurer, like the Secretary, has only limited duties and functions, which he has no right to transcend. He is presumed to know what appropriations have been made by the Legislature, and has no right to pay warrants, unless drawn upon some specified fund', except when a claim or amount is authorized by law to be paid out of a general contingent appropriation, which he may pay upon warrant of the Secretary. (Mis. Laws, ch. 1, § 28.)
These guards and checks upon transactions of public officers were wisely made, and each officer should be required to keep within the scope of his authority, not only in order to secure the interest of the public, but also to protect the rights of the individual citizen. As there were no appropriations made for the payment of the warrants in question, the Secretary of State had no right to draw the same, and the State Treasurer violated no official duty in refusing to pay them.
. The decision of the Court below is, therefore, affirmed.