would duly observe the respective fiscal years, and would not be in conflict with anything contained in the decision in In re Appropriations, cited above. After the Legislature adopted the practice of making biennial appropriations for the fiscal years, there was a period of time from the first day of December in each even numbered year, until the biennial session of the Legislature in the succeeding January, during which there was no provision of law for the payment of the salaries or the contingent or incidental expenses of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial Departments of State. The General Assembly has usually been very prompt, upon its meeting in January, in passing the appropriation bill provid ing for the payment of the per diem and mileage of its members, the per diem of its clerks and employes and the contingent and incidental expenses of the Legislature. The General Assembly always passes a short appropriation bill, covering the months of December, January, February and March, providing for the payment of the salaries and contingent and incidental expenses of the Executive and Judicial Departments of State; but this short appropriation bill is seldom passed until the month of February, and frequently not until the last of February. These two departments are therefore left without any provision for their support for a period of from two to three months in each biennial period. At or near the close of each legislative session, a general ap propriation bill, commonly called "the long appropriation bill," is passed, which provides for the expenses of the three departments of state, from April 1st to the 30th day of November in the next succeeding year. In the case, In re Continuing Appropriations, 18 Colo., 192, decided in 1893, the Supreme Court of this State, in response to a legislative question, refused to follow the earlier case of People vs. Spruance, 8 Colo., 530, decided in 1885, and held that "As to those appropriations designated in the question as 'continuing appropriations,' that is, those, the payment of which is to be continued beyond the next biennial session of the Legislature, we see no constitutional objection thereto. The power of the Legislature, except as otherwise restricted, by the Constitution, is plenary over the entire subject." Our Supreme Court, in several subsequent opinions, has adhered to the doctrine of continuing appropriations. Goodykoontz vs. Acker, 19 Colo., 360. People ex rel. Hegwer vs. Goodykoontz, 22 Colo., 507. In the Hegwer case it was held that when the Constitution or a statute fixes the salary to be received by a public officer, it operates as a continuing appropriation therefor, and no further 1 legislative sanction is necessary to authorize the proper officers to pay the same. Since the adoption of the doctrine of continuing appropriations by our Supreme Court, the fixed salaries of the various State officers have been paid as continuing appropriations, without regard to the passage of either the short or the long appropriation bills by the Legislature. However, there is still no provision for the payment, after the 30th of November preceding the biennial legislative session, of the contingent and incidental expenses of the three departments, nor for the payment of the salaries of many of the clerks and employes of the Executive and Judicial Departments, whose employment is not provided for by law, except by appropriations for their payment in the general appropriation bills. The absolute necessity for continuing the employment of these clerks and employes of the Executive and Judicial Departments, as well as for the purchase of stationery, printing and other necessary supplies for the use of the three departments of State, is recognized by all departments of State, and it has been the practice for many years to continue the employment of such persons and to purchase such necessary supplies without any authority of law therefor, trusting to the Legislature to provide for the payment therefor, which has always been done, commonly in the short appropriation bill for the Executive and Judicial Departments, and in part by the appropriation bill providing for the legislative expenses. There being no auditing board at this period, and no check upon the several departments of State in the matter of expenses incurred by them, or the amount of supplies purchased during said period, it is only a question of time when abuses will creep in. Several methods may be suggested by which the Legislature may guard against possible abuses and avoid the inconvenience resulting from the present absurd practice of leaving the several departments of State without an appropriation for from one to three months in each biennial period. 1. The beginning and end of the fiscal year might be changed, although there is some advantage in the present method of having the fiscal year end one month before the meeting of the General Assembly. 2. The General Assembly might pass separate bills providing for the employment of necessary clerks and employes in the several departments of State, and fix their salaries in such a manner as to make the same continuing appropriations. 3. Continuing appropriations might be made for the various departments of State in lump sums, sufficient in amount to provide for the salaries of the clerks and employes thereof. 4. The Secretary of State might by law be constituted the general purchasing agent of the State, with power to supervise the purchase of all supplies for the three departments of State, and, if necessary, his acts might be made subject to the supervision of a permanent auditing board. Miller vs. Edwards, 8 Colo., 528. Mulnix vs. Life Ins. Co., 23 Colo., 71, 80. Section 29, article V, Constitution. 1 M. A. S., sections 1777 and 1782. Opinions of Attorney General Engley, 1893-94, pages 8, 42. 5. The present method of creating an auditing board and defining its duties and powers in the general appropriation bill is, to say the least, of very doubtful legality. The Legislature might provide by law for a permanent auditing board, define its powers and duties, and make a continuing appropriation for contingent and incidental expenses, and clerical salaries of the three departments, to be expended under the direction of such board. 6. The power of the Legislature over appropriations, except as limited by the Constitution, is plenary; and in my opinion, there is no constitutional restriction which will prevent the Legislature from making appropriations from April 1st to April 1st two years hence, in the manner outlined above. Many of the items, as, for example, "officers' fixed salaries," in both the short and the long appropriation bills, are continuing appropriations, which must be paid irrespective of their mention in or omission from said bills. These items, therefore, should be omitted from said bills. Respectfully submitted, CALVIN E. REED, Assistant Attorney General., AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. The president of the State Board of Agriculture is a public officer, and the present incumbent of said office is not entitled to the salary of two hundred dollars per annum because the law went into effect after he was elected to the office. April 5, 1906. HON. P. F. SHARP, President State Board of Agriculture, Denver, Colorado. Dear Sir-In answer to your request for an opinion as to whether or not under the provisions of the act passed during the last session of the Legislature, you, as president of the State Board of Agriculture, may accept the salary of $200 per annum, which said act permits the board to allow the president, I beg to say: Said act is entitled: "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to establish a State Board of Agriculture, and to define its duties,' approved February 27, 1877, and as amended February 12, 1879," and may be found in the Session Laws of 1905, at page 318. This act was approved April 10, 1905, but did not go into effect until ninety days after its passage. The general rule is that in the absence of any constitutional restriction, the salary of a public officer may, by proper legisla tive authority, be either increased or diminished during his offi cial term. The Constitution of Colorado provides: "Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, no law shall extend the term of any public officer, or increase or dimin ish his salary and emoluments after his election or appointment." Article V, section 30, Constitution of Colorado. The old law allowed the members of said board four dollars per diem and actual traveling expenses, but provided no additional compensation for the president of the board. The new law provides that the members of said board shall receive no compensation for their services, but may be allowed actual traveling expenses. The president of the board may be allowed a salary of $200 per annum, under the new law, but said law does not contain an emergency clause, and therefore it did not go into effect until ninety days after its passage. According to the information given to me, you were elected president of said board on the 25th day of April, 1905. It will be observed that the new law did not go into effect until after your election. I am of the opinion that you are a public officer within the meaning of the law, and as you were elected president of the board on April 25, 1905, and before the new law went into effect, you would not be entitled to said salary of $200 per annum, because of said constitutional provision, which expressly forbids an increase in the compensation of a public officer after his election or appointment. Yours truly, N. C. MILLER, Attorney General. By W. R. RAMSEY, Assistant Attorney General. APPROPRIATION. State officer has not authority to expend money for a different purpose than that plainly indicated in the appropriation. February 5, 1906. HON. A. E. BENT, Auditor of State, Denver, Colorado. Dear Sir-I have your letter transmitting the communication of J. M. Woodard, Game and Fish Commissioner, asking a construction of the appropriation contained on pages 234 and 235 of the Session Laws of 1905. The statement is made that the salary provided for by that appropriation for the year 1905 has not been used. It is desired to erect a fish hatchery with the money appropriated for that purpose, and to use the salary intended for the year 1905 for maintenance of the hatchery. The appropriation allows an annual salary of $900.00 for assistant superintendent, and I am unable to contrive any legal way in which the Auditor can take appropriations made for salaries and use them for the purchase of material and supplies. If such construction could be upheld, then there is no use in the Legislature making appropriations, but it might simply direct the Auditor to run the State with what money there is in the treasury. The object of appropriations is to define the purpose for which the moneys shall be used. Yours truly, N. C. MILLER, |