Difference between revisions of ".MTUyNg.MTMwNjY"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
110 | 110 | ||
| − | consequence of the appropriations made by law." On a comparison, it will be found that this clause, so far as it respects appropriations is a transcript of the Constitution of the | + | |
| + | consequence of the appropriations made by law." On a comparison, it will be found that this clause, so far as it respects appropriations is a transcript of the Constitution of the United States, under which, it is known, that the officers of the Treasury do not feel authorized to make any payment and unless in consequence of a specific appropriation. This is one of the instances in which our Constitution is varied from that of the parent State. This alteration having, undoubtedly, been intended as an additional security of the Treasury, it becomes proper to enquire in what manner it was contemplated to have that effect, and what has been the practice under Constitutions containing a similar provision. From the phraseology of the section referred to, it would seem to have been the intention of the framers of our Constitution that the probable expenditures of the ensuing year should be distinctly brought before each Legislature in the form of an appropriation law: and the actual expenditures of the past year, in the form of a regular statement and account. The laws of the United States fixing the salaries of its officers, or the pay of the Army or Navy, or the pay of Congress, have never been deemed by the officers of the Treasury as any authority for them to make the payment. The law establishing the salary, pledges the government for the payment of such salary, but does not make the appropriation, and without the appropriation, the Comptroller and the Secretary of the Treasury do not permit the payment. As our Constitution is in this respect like that of the United States, and as the Governor & Council have no greater authority in relation to the State Treasury than have the Comptroller and | ||
Revision as of 20:50, 11 February 2020
110
consequence of the appropriations made by law." On a comparison, it will be found that this clause, so far as it respects appropriations is a transcript of the Constitution of the United States, under which, it is known, that the officers of the Treasury do not feel authorized to make any payment and unless in consequence of a specific appropriation. This is one of the instances in which our Constitution is varied from that of the parent State. This alteration having, undoubtedly, been intended as an additional security of the Treasury, it becomes proper to enquire in what manner it was contemplated to have that effect, and what has been the practice under Constitutions containing a similar provision. From the phraseology of the section referred to, it would seem to have been the intention of the framers of our Constitution that the probable expenditures of the ensuing year should be distinctly brought before each Legislature in the form of an appropriation law: and the actual expenditures of the past year, in the form of a regular statement and account. The laws of the United States fixing the salaries of its officers, or the pay of the Army or Navy, or the pay of Congress, have never been deemed by the officers of the Treasury as any authority for them to make the payment. The law establishing the salary, pledges the government for the payment of such salary, but does not make the appropriation, and without the appropriation, the Comptroller and the Secretary of the Treasury do not permit the payment. As our Constitution is in this respect like that of the United States, and as the Governor & Council have no greater authority in relation to the State Treasury than have the Comptroller and