People v. Tremaine
| Decision Date | 19 November 1929 |
| Citation | 168 N.E. 817,252 N.Y. 27 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. TREMAINE, State Comptroller. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Submission of controversy on agreed facts by the People against Morris S. Tremaine, as Comptroller of the state. Judgment for plaintiffs (226 App. Div. 331, 235 N. Y. S. 555), and defendant appeals.
Reversed, with directions.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
William D. Guthrie and Edward G. Griffin, both of New York City, for appellant.
Hamilton Ward, Atty. Gen. (Nathan L. Miller, of New York City, John Knight, of Arcade, and C. T. Dawes, of Albany, of counsel), for the People.
From the agreed statement of facts on which this controversy is submitted to the court it appears that the Governor transmitted to the Legislature his original itemized budget and budget bill on January 28, 1929, in accordance with article 4-A of the New York Constitution (see Laws 1928, p. 1886), § 2, which reads as follows:
In the budget bill so submitted were many lump sum appropriations, not itemized to the administrative departments. Although the budget must contain all the estimates of proposed expenditures ‘clearly itemized,’ the Governor and the Legislature seem to be in accord in the view that the budget bill submitted by the Governor need not be itemized, but that it may contain lump sum appropriations. The provisions for the department of law are typical. They were as follows:
‘Department of Law
‘To permit the Attorney-General to reorganize the department of law, exclusive of the appropriations made for the investigation of sale of securities and unlawful corporative activities, $582,250.00.
* * *
‘Special deputies, investigators, referees, witnesses and title searchers, services and expenses, $60,000.00.
‘Services and expenses, $210,000.00
The State Finance Law, § 139, has since 1921 (Laws 1921, c. 336; Laws 1927, c. 364, § 2 [Consol. Laws, c. 56]) provided as follows:
Although there is no accompanying act of the Legislature reorganizing the department of law or the department of labor, it is claimed by the respondent that this section is applicable to reorganization items in the budget bill or bills for such departments. Whether this contention is upheld or not, no question is raised as to the propriety of the reorganization items as such apart from the provisions for segregation.
In each instance in the original Governor's budget bill, where a lump sum appropriation was specified for any purpose, the bill provided that the Governor should be the sole approving authority over segregations. Segregations consist of an itemized list of the positions and salaries covered by the lump sum appropriation.
The Legislature did not assent to the provision giving the Governor exclusive power of approval of such segregations. On February 27, 1929, it passed the Governor's original budget bill, striking out all the items to which the Governor had attached his provision of segregation control. The items were restated. Section 139 of the State Finance Law was allowed to take effect if and whenever applicable, and in appropriations other than for reorganization of state departments the Legislature inserted segregation clauses calling for participation of the chairman of the legislative finance committees with the Governor in the approval of segregations.
The Governor refused to approve any of the lump sum items in which the chairmen of the finance committees were to share authority. He thereafter, on March 18, 1929, sent to the Legislature two supplemental budget bills, one containing many lump sum appropriations, for the needs of many state departments, all of which appropriations were restricted to the exercise of the Governor's sole power over segregations; and the other bill itemizing and segregating most of the appropriations appearing in lump sum form in the first supplemental bill. The Legislature, on March 28, 1929, acted upon this second supplemental bill, approving most of the segregated items therein, but again setting up a few of the departmental appropriations in lump sum form, more particularly the sums for reorganizing the department of law and the department of labor, with the intent that segregations were to be approved under section 139 of the State Finance Law. In cases other than reorganization, i. e., in cases of the large lump sum construction items, the Legislature appended to them a segregation clause like the one in section 139 requiring in the same manner all three-the Governor, the chairman of the Senate finance committee, and the chairman of the Assembly ways and means committee-to approve segregations when any part of such moneys was to be used for personal service. The provision affecting the use of construction items for personal service is found in section 11 of the bill, as follows: follows:
On April 12, 1929, the Governor upon the return of the bill to him, approved the lump sum items for reorganizing the department of law and the department of labor, insisting, however, that section 139 of the State Finance Law was unconstitutional in its application to those items. He disapproved the general segregation clause, section 11, referred to above, applying to the segregation of personal service items in the large construction items, as he said, ‘on constitutional grounds.’ The bill became chapter 593 of the Laws of 1929. Other appropriation bills passed at the same session contain similar provisions, and were acted on by the Governor in the same manner. As the questions raised thereunder are, with the exception hereafter indicated as to the state office site and building commission, identical with those stated above, no special reference need be made to them.
The controversy thus arising was submitted on an agreed statement of facts to the Appellate Division, Third Department, under Civil Practice Act, §§ 546-548, inclusive, and thus became an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowsher v. Synar United States Senate v. Synar Neill v. Synar 85 1379
...delegate the same power to itself and, in the process, escape from the constraints under which it must operate"); People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 44, 168 N.E. 817, 822 (1929) ("If the power to approve the segregation of lump sum appropriations may be delegated to any one, even to one or tw......
-
Board of Ed. of Wyoming County v. Board of Public Works
......110, 26 So.2d 849; State ex rel. Anderson v. Fadely, 180 Kan. 652, 308 P.2d 537; In re Opinion of the Justices, 302 Mass. 605, 19 N.E.2d 807; People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 168 N.E. 817; State ex rel. McCaw v. Ferguson, 139 Ohio St. 1, 38 N.E.2d 68. In People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 168 N.E. ......
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
......See People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 44, 168 N.E. 817. We are of opinion, however, that the power conferred by the bill on the Governor acting ......
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. Fadely
...... of constitutional provisions; rather, the test is whether the legislation conforms with the common understanding, the true intention, of the people at the time they adopted the constitutional provision and the presumption is in favor of the natural and popular meaning in which the words are ... In People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 168 N.W. 817, 822, Justice Pound said: . '* * * The legislative power appropriates money, and, except as to legislative and judicial ......
-
Funding 'Non-Traditional' Military Operations: The Alluring Myth of a Presidential Power of the Purse
...(Appropriations clause "is to insure legislative control, and to exclude executive control, over appropriations."); People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 38, 168 N.E. 817, 820 (1929) ("It is . . . so well settled that the State Legislature is supreme in all matters of appropriations that the rec......