Bailey v. State Bd. of Public Affairs
| Decision Date | 14 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | 31677. |
| Citation | Bailey v. State Bd. of Public Affairs, 153 P.2d 235, 1944 OK 301, 194 Okla. 495 (Okla. 1944) |
| Parties | BAILEY v. STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
As Corrected Jan. 4, 1945.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Senate Bills No. 2 and No. 184 of the 19th Oklahoma Legislature, S.L.1943, pages 302 and 235, 74 O.S.Supp.1943 §§ 73.1, 73.2, are in pari materia and are to be construed and applied together.
2. The theory of separation of the three powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) does not mean that the distinctions between the three can be carried out with precision, but there may be a certain degree of blending of the three powers. The true meaning is that the whole power of one department may not be exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of either of the other departments.
3. The Legislature may delegate to other departments of the government some powers which it may rightfully exercise.
4. While the Legislature may not delegate to others the power to make a law, which involves a discretion as to what it shall be, it may confer upon executive officers discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
5. The Legislature has a wide discretion as to the minuteness with which the policy and standard may be expressed in a statute which confers upon executive officers discretion in carrying out the statute, and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with such discretion.
6. The courts will not declare a statute to be unconstitutional unless its invalidity appears beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. Senate Bills No. 2 and 184 of the 19th Oklahoma Legislature S.L.1943, pages 302 and 235, 74 O.S.Supp.1943, §§ 73.1, 73.2 are not violative of Section 1 of Article 4, Section 1 of Article 5, Section 19 of Article 10, or Article 21, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
8. A statute that is in conflict with, but which does not mention a prior statute, has the effect of repealing, by implication the prior statute to the extent of the conflict.
Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by Cecil C. Bailey, a taxpayer, against the State Board of Public Affairs, composed of Virgil Browne, Mrs. Maude Calvert and H. A. Hewett, to prevent the Board from carrying out certain acts under authority of 74 O.S.Supp.1943 §§ 73.1. 73.2.
Plaintiff's prayer for relief denied.
Walter L. Gray, of Oklahoma City, and Bill Ginder and J. Wilford Hill, both of Cherokee, for plaintiff in error.
Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., and S. H. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.
This is an original proceeding in this court to prevent the State Board of Public Affairs from carrying out certain acts under authority of Senate Bill No. 184 of the 19th Legislature, S.L.1943 page 235, 74 O.S.Supp.1943 §§ 73.1, 73.2.
The State Board of Public Affairs is charged with the management of the penal and eleemosynary institutions of the state. In order to relieve the congestion in some of said institutions the 19th Legislature passed Senate Bill 184, Section 1 of which is as follows:
Senate Bill No. 2 of the Nineteenth Legislature, S.L.1943 page 302, makes appropriations for said institutions for the two fiscal years ending June 30, 1944, and June 30, 1945. Section 1 of that Act, 74 O.S.Supp.1943, § 73.1, contains a clause practically identical with Section 1 of Senate Bill 184, above. Each Act contains a severability clause. The two laws are in pari materia and are to be construed together. State ex rel. Marland v. Phillips Pet. Co., 189 Okl. 629, 118 P.2d 621.
On November 22, 1943, the State Board of Public Affairs passed a resolution, which was approved by the Governor on the same day, with the view of carrying out the policy declared by Senate Bill 184, which, omitting the first two paragraphs reciting the substance of the law, is as follows:
The purpose of this action is to prevent the State Board of Public Affairs from carrying out said resolution on the ground that Senate Bill 184 is unconstitutional, and the acts about to be carried out under the resolution are unauthorized and would be void. Plaintiff sues as a taxpayer. He urges several reasons why the Act is unconstitutional.
1. Plaintiff first contends that Senate Bill 184 is violative of that part of Section 19, Article 10, of the state constitution, which provides that "no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose."
The moneys appropriated by Senate Bill No. 2 are appropriated out of the general revenue fund of the State, the public building fund and the revolving fund of certain of said institutions. And the money to be used in making the transfers is to come from the "Governor's Contingency and Emergency Fund" of $900,000, which is appropriated out of the general revenue fund. S.L.1943, page 328. The general revenue fund comes from many sources and may ordinarily be used to finance any proper state function, including the care of the inmates in the penal and eleemosynary institutions.
The plaintiff does not point out where any of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting