In re Opinion of the Justices

• Decision Date: 17 April 1911
• Citation: 208 Mass. 610,94 N.E. 852
• Parties: In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

208 Mass. 610

94 N.E. 852

In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

April 17, 1911.

Opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court in response to a question presented by the Senate. Question answered.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (s 77*)-LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT-INTERFERENCE BY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

St. 1910, c. 220, providing for supervision by the Governor and Council of expenditures and financial operations, and authorizing the Governor in his discretion to transmit to the General Court, with his recommendations, if any, particular items of estimates made by officers and heads of departments, does not impair the power of the General Court to make appropriations, nor increase the power of the Governor over appropriations, and the statute creates no interference by the executive department with the power of the legislative department, in violation of Bill of Rights, art. 30, prohibiting the executive department from exercising legislative powers.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. s 141; Dec. Dig. s 77.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (ss 52, 58*)-LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT-INTERFERENCE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

Bill of Right, art. 30, prohibiting the legislative department from exercising executive or judicial powers, is violated where the Legislature attempts to interfere with action taken by the executive or judicial department under existing laws, and thus to project itself into a field of action belonging to another department.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. ss 50-88; Dec. Dig. ss 52, 58.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

The following is the question submitted:

‘Whereas, section 6 of chapter 220 of the Acts of the Year 1910 repealed section 26 of chapter 6 of the Revised Laws, as amended by section 6 of chapter 211 of the Acts of the Year 1905 and section 5 of chapter 597 of the Acts of the Year 1908; and

‘Whereas, prior to the passage of said act, the Auditor and various heads of departments submitted to the General Court items in reference to appropriations; and

‘Whereas, said chapter 220 of the Acts of the Year 1910 made certain changes in reference to matters affecting appropriations by the General Court and especially by section 5 of said chapter gave the Governor of the commonwealth in his discretion power to transmit to the General Court with his recommendations such items as he saw fit, and further gave him the power to withhold other items; and

‘Whereas, said power has an important bearing on the acts in reference to appropriations to be passed by the General Court: Therefore, be it

‘Ordered, That the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required to give their opinion to the Senate upon the following important question of law:

‘Does said chapter 220 of the Acts of the Year 1910, and more especially section 5 of said chapter, give to the executive a power which infringes on the power of the General Court, contrary to section 30 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the commonwealth of Massachusetts?’

To the Honorable Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

We, the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, having considered the question upon which our opinion is required by the order of April 7, 1911, a copy of which is hereto annexed, respectfully submit this opinion:

[1] St. 1910, c. 220, has made but a very small change in the law of the commonwealth. It has not limited or impaired in any degree the power of the General Court to make appropriations of money to meet the requirements of the commonwealth. R. L. c. 6, § 26, as amended by St. 1905, c. 211, § 6, and St. 1908, c. 597, § 5, required substantially the same estimates and statements from officers and boards as are required by the later act. The only additional statement called for by the present statute is of the expenditures for the current year and for each of the next preceding two years. This statute also requires the statements to the Auditor to be embodied by him in two different documents, one relating to appropriations for general purposes or objects and the other to appropriations for special purposes or objects, instead of having them all embodied in a single document. These are the only material changes in form or substance in the matters to be compiled by the Auditor for the information of the General Court.

Under R. L. c. 6, § 26, he was required to embody these estimates ‘in one document which’ was to be ‘printed and laid before the General Court.’ Under the present statute, which is alike in its provisions in regard to the appropriations for general objects and in those in regard to appropriations for special objects, he is to embody the statements of each class ‘in one document, which shall be printed, and shall be submitted on or before the first Thursday in January of each year to the Governor and Council for examination. * * * Copies of the document shall be distributed to the members of the GeneralCourt.’ Under the present statute, as under the former one, the Auditor is not only to prepare the document, but to cause it to be printed, which means printed in an edition...