Davis v. Childers
| Decision Date | 21 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | 28092. |
| Citation | 74 P.2d 930,181 Okla. 468,1937 OK 728 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. CHILDERS, State Auditor, et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1938.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The Constitution does not give the courts veto power over appropriations made by the Legislature, but fixes upon the Legislature the responsibility of making appropriations and raising sufficient revenues to finance such appropriations.
2. The courts will not usurp the high prerogative exercised by the Legislature in making appropriations for state purposes, and when called upon to review legislative acts, can neither assume bad faith on the part of the Legislature nor inquire into the motives or intent of the Legislature by evidence other than its recorded proceedings. Testimony of individual legislators or others as to happenings in the Legislature is incompetent, since that body speaks solely through its concerted action as shown by its vote.
3. Under the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, if the Legislature has misjudged the amount of revenue to accrue from taxes levied and estimated to produce sufficient revenues during the biennium for which it makes appropriations, it may, at special session, or at the next regular session during such biennium, provide for additional revenues to meet such failure in revenues. Section 3, art. 10 of the Constitution. The courts, therefore, assume that its constitutional duty will be performed.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Sam Hooker, Judge.
Action by Hale V. Davis against C. C. Childers, State Auditor, and the State Treasurer for injunction and to test validity of appropriations made by Sixteenth Legislature. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Sid White, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Randell S. Cobb, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendants in error.
This action was brought in the district court by Hale V. Davis, as a taxpayer, attacking the amount of the appropriations made by the last, the Sixteenth, Legislature for the ensuing biennium. House Bill No. 380, Laws 1937, c. 27, art. 3, 62 Okl.St.Ann. § 252 et seq., allowing the issuance of state treasury notes to finance appropriations on account of possible failure in revenues is attacked as unconstitutional, and injunction is asked against the auditor and treasurer to prevent the issuance of either nonpayable warrants or notes.
It is contended that the Sixteenth Legislature appropriated against the general revenue fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, 34 millions of dollars, and that the revenues provided for would fall short of that amount according to the information furnished by the tax commissioner; that therefore some of the appropriations are void. The plaintiff states in his petition that he does not know just how the revenues should be used, "after satisfying those (appropriations) commanded by the Constitution," but that the court should apply the principle of marshaling assets, and thus advise the defendants what appropriations to pay first and then the subsequent order of payment. Appropriations for the year ending June 30, 1939, are similarly attacked, except that the deficit, it is alleged, will be less for that year. It is contended that if nonpayable warrants or the notes provided for by House Bill No. 380 are issued, they will, to the extent of the assumed deficit, create debts in violation of sections 2 and 23 of article 10 of the Constitution.
The trial judge permitted the taking of testimony, and rendered judgment for the defendants. After ordering judgment for the defendants, the judge expressed certain opinions, which, it is urged, should be binding here. Since the case is in equity, however, we are not bound either by the reasoning of the trial court or its findings, but may, if the law and facts warrant, affirm the case if the judge reached the correct ultimate conclusion, regardless of the effect of the facts found or the reasoning of the lower court in reaching a conclusion. Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County v. First State Bank of Oklahoma City, 77 Okl. 291, 188 P. 115.
Scott Stine, Assistant State Auditor, L. D. Melton, Research Director of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, and Dr. J. M. Ashton, of the State Chamber of Commerce, were called as witnesses, and the following facts, in brief, were disclosed: That appropriations for the year ending June 30, 1938, in the sum of approximately $34,000,000 had been made, chiefly distributed in general as follows: Slightly less than one-ninth to the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, a little less than one-third to the state institutions, approximately one-seventh to the public welfare board, and nearly two-fifths to the common schools. To finance these appropriations are the revenues accruing from the gross production, income, cigarette, motor vehicle excise, use, inheritance, corporation license, insurance taxes, miscellaneous fees, and surplus.
Each of these witnesses furnished estimates as to the amount of income which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to accrue from the designated tax sources. Mr. Stine testified he had had ten years' experience in making such estimates, and that from the information had in May, 1937, it reasonably appeared that the appropriations could be financed. His written estimate of various receipts was offered in evidence. Estimates made by the Tax Commission in December, 1936, February, 1937, and May, 1937, were submitted, which tended to show that the Tax Commission believed the revenue would fall far short of the appropriations. Mr. Melton testified, however, that the commission's estimate was intentionally made conservative and low, and that some of the estimates, in total, had been as much as six millions of dollars short of collections actually made by the commission for the period covered by the estimate. He stated also that the Legislature was furnished monthly statements of collections and that these statements showed an increase from month to month after December. Dr. Ashton's estimates were somewhat similar to Mr. Melton's.
Two members of the Legislature were called in an attempt to show that the Legislature knew that the revenues would be insufficient and attempt was also made to show that the Governor was informed of the prospective deficit before he approved the appropriations. A letter from the Governor was offered in evidence, but not received, wherein the Governor gave his reasons for believing that the revenues would probably be sufficient.
It was contended at the trial and is here that the Legislature and Governor did not act in good faith, and that they could base their action only on the estimate made by the Tax Commission and furnished the Governor under a provision of the statute creating the Tax Commission. 68 Okl.St.Ann. § 1 et seq. It is also contended that this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial