APPROPRIATION FOR INSANE ASYLUM. H. B. No. 318, entitled "An act for the payment of a part of the maintenance, support and incidental and other necessary expenditures for the State Insane Asylum for the years 1904-1905, approved March 2nd, 1905," is valid, although there is a discrepancy between the title and the provisions of section 1 of said act. March 14, 1905. HON. ALFRED E. BENT, Auditor of State, State Capitol. Dear Sir-Replying to your communication of the 8th inst., enclosing certified copy of H. B. No. 318, entitled "An act for the payment of a part of the maintenance, support and incidental and other necessary expenditures for the State Insane Asylum for the years 1904-1905," approved March 2, 1905, in which you call attention to a discrepancy between the title and the provis ions of section 1 of said act, and inquire as to your right to issue warrants against this appropriation, I would say that I have examined said act and the title thereto and find that the variance is confined alone to the time for which the appropriation is to be made. The title indicates that the appropriation is for the years 1904-1905, while section 1 of said act states that it is for the years 1905-1906. It seems quite clear from reading the whole of said act that the intention of the Legislature was to appropriate $35,000.00 for the expenses of said Insane Asylum, for the years 1905-1906, commencing December 1st, 1904, and ending November 30th, 1906, and I think the mis-recital, in the title, of the years for which the same was to be made, is a clerical error, or mistake. I do not regard this such a variance as is fatal. When, from an examination of the entire statute, the intention can be ascertained by a reasonable construction, such construction should be made effective. At one time, the prefixing of a title to an act was deemed of so little importance that it was the practice in Parliament to allow the clerk of the House in which the bill originated to supply the title. Such, however, has not been the rule in this country. Here, from the earliest times, it has been the practice of both houses to aid in framing the title. It was by reason of such legislative sanction that, in order to ascertain the object of an act, for the purpose of construing doubtful language, an examination of the title has been frequently re sorted to by courts. In this way, the title of an act was first given importance and the exercise of care in framing it became necessary. Recently, by a constitutional provision in some of the States, somewhat similar to our own, the title has been made a matter of primary importance. Our Constitution, article V, section 21, provides: "No bill except general appropriation bills shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, but if any subject shall be embraced in any act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed." This constitutional inhibition must receive a reasonable construction. It is enough if the bill treats of but one general subject, and that subject is expressed in the title; to require that each subdivision of the subject, each and every of the "ends and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of the object," must be specifically mentioned in the title, would greatly impede and embarrass legitimate legislation. Judge Cooley asserts that it would "actually render legislation impossible.” Golden Canal Co. vs. Bright, 8 Colo., 149. Ludington vs. Heilman, 9 C. A., 551. In construing this constitutional provision, it is important to bear in mind the evils sought to be corrected thereby. The practice of putting together in one bill subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of such bill the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits, was undoubtedly one of the evils sought to be eradicated. Another object is to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon legislators, and to apprise the People of the subjects of legislation by the titles of the bills, so that they might have an opportunity to be heard by petition or other. wise. But few are able or care to take the time necessary to keep informed of all the legislation proposed at a single session where it is necessary to examine in detail every bill in order to obtain this information. When, however, each proposed act is confined to a single subject, and that subject is clearly expressed in the title, those interested are put upon inquiry when legisla tion is proposed affecting such subject, without its being necessary for them to examine every bill for the purpose of seeing that nothing objectionable is coiled up within the folds of the measure. Catron vs. County Comrs., 18 Colo., 557. I The leading object of the act in question was the appropriation for the benefit of the State Insane Asylum, and the title of the act would, perhaps, have been good without specially reciting the years for which the appropriation was to be made. think that the subject of the act is sufficiently expressed in the title. The year 1905 is included in section 1, and also in the title of said act. In a Texas case, where the title of an act amending another act mis-recites the date of the act intended to be amended, and the original act was the only one ever passed on the same subject-matter, it was held that the mistake in the date could surprise or mislead no one, and the validity of the amending enactment was not affected thereby. See State vs. McCracken, 42 Tex. Rep., 386. In the case before us the appropriation for the year 1904 had already been made, as I understand it, and it is not at all probable that anybody was misled, or deceived, by the title of the act in question. Therefore, I think it will be proper for you to issue warrants against this appropriation. Respectfully. N. C. MILLER, Attorney General. By W. R. RAMSEY, Assistant Attorney General. APPROPRIATIONS. Advisability of passing an act similar to the one found at page 122, Session Laws 1881, repealing outstanding appropriations, except special funds. "Special fund" is not "special appropriation." is one created by the fractional mill levies. A "special fund" November 12, 1906. HON. A. E. BENT, 'Auditor of State, State Capitol, Denver. Dear Sir-On the 4th day of February, 1881, the Legislature of Colorado passed the following act: "AN ACT IN RELATION TO SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE STATE TREASURY. "Be it Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: "Section 1. That all sums of money remaining in the hands of the State Treasurer, other than that set apart by law for a special fund, shall be by said Treasurer carried to the general fund." Laws 1881, page 122. A similar act has not been passed since that time. The general appropriation bill at the end of each biennial period carries all the balance unexpended to the general fund. It has been "expended" if bills have been contracted against it, for the reason that no bills can be contracted unless there is money appropriated for that purpose. The mere creation of a debt against the appropriation is in reality its expenditure; so that the balance may be drawn against and paid out after the biennial period, although no bills can be contracted against the general fund after the end of the biennial period. There is a large number of appropriations in the Session Laws of Colorado that have never been paid, and which have a legal claim on any surplus of the various biennial periods. These appropriations should be paid in the order of their passagethose of the earliest date taking first rank. I am convinced from an examination of the Session Laws that it is impossible to comply with the law in relation to the payment of the old appropriations, and yet any person having an interest in any appropriation could make serious trouble for the Auditor if the order of payment is disregarded. I think it is my duty to advise that an act similar to that of 1881 should be passed. The expression, "special fund," means something different from "special appropriation." It appears to refer to those funds that are created by the fractional mill levies. These are what are known in Colorado as "special funds." The opposite idea is expressed by the term "general fund." Hence, in Colorado we have two funds-a "general fund," created by the balance of the four-mill levy after subtracting the fractional mill levies, and a "special fund." Therefore, a statute similar to the one quoted in this letter would repeal all these appropriations except the funds. belonging to the fractional mill levies. I have written this letter since the conversation I had with you the other day concerning this matter, in order that you may make such recommendation to the Legislature in this regard as you may deem wise. Yours respectfully, N. C. MILLER, APPROPRIATIONS. An appropriation should show clearly the purpose for which it is to be expended. September 8, 1905. HON. ALFRED E. BENT, Auditor of State, Denver, Colorado. Dear Sir I have your communication of this date, asking for an opinion as to the right to pay vouchers for the erection of a building by the State Board of Agriculture for the purpose of conducting experiments in horse-breeding. I understand from your letter and the correspondence with the Secretary of the Board, that the right is claimed to erect a building and pay for it out of the appropriation covered by section 2 of chapter 30 of the Laws of 1905, the same being an appropriation for the State Agricultural College. Our Constitution provides: "No money shall be paid out of the treasury except upon appropriations made by law and on warrants drawn by the proper officers in pursuance thereof." Section 33, article V, Constitution of Colorado. An appropriation is defined to be: "The setting aside of money to a particular person or use, to the exclusion of all other persons or uses." (Enc. of Law, volume II, page 514.) State vs. Sioux City Ry. Co., 7 Neb., 323. Woodward vs. Reynolds, 58 Conn., 490. State vs. Bordelon, 6 La. Ann., 68. The construction of provisions in appropriation bills is to be made in accordance with the natural meaning of words. It seems to me that the Auditor must adopt the natural interpretation of provisions of appropriation bills, and reject obscure and hidden purposes. There is a radical difference between the maintenance of institutions already in existence and the enlargement and extension of the same. This difference is so marked that it was thought advisable at one time to place all appropriations for extensions and improvements in a class by themselves, so that they would come after all moneys for the maintenance of institu tions and any expenses. |