State ex rel. Caldwell v. Lee

• Decision Date: 19 July 1946
• Citation: 27 So.2d 84,157 Fla. 773
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CALDWELL, Governor, et al. v. LEE, Comptroller.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

27 So.2d 84

157 Fla. 773

STATE ex rel. CALDWELL, Governor, et al. v. LEE, Comptroller.

Florida Supreme Court

July 19, 1946

Petition for Clarification Denied July 29, 1946.

B. A. Meginniss, of Tallahassee, for relators.

J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Fred M. Burns, Sumter Leitner, and Howard S. Bailey, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

TERRELL, Justice.

The Legislature of 1945 enacted Chapter 22820, F.S.A. §§ 282.24 to 282.26, the purpose of which was to (1) enable the State to provide or assist in providing the necessary buildings and other facilities to meet the needs of its departments, agencies and institutions, (2) enable the State to carry out a post-war program of conversion from war to peacetime economy and (3) do the State's part toward relieving unemployment that usually follows the cessation of hostilities.

In order to carry out this program, Section 1 of the Act appropriated $3,000,000 and defined a tentative building program under groups A, B, and C, to guide the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions, but which it was authorized by the Act to change or modify within its discretion as the needs and circumstances of the agencies require.

To provide additional funds to complete this building program, Section 2 of Chapter 22820 provides: '* * * the budget commission is hereby authorized and directed to examine into the funds of the state and funds and appropriation balances of state departments, boards, commissions institutions and other state agencies from time to time to ascertain what surplus or balance, if any, will remain in any of said funds after the needs of the state and its agencies are provided for without interfering with the operations thereof and their normal services to the public, or hindering the carrying out of all duties imposed by law and the efficient conduct of their business. When such ascertainment and determination shall have been made, the said budget commission, by and with the approval of the governor, shall set aside timely for the purpose hereof such funds as the said budget commission may determine as unneeded balance or surplus, and shall cover the same into the state building fund to become a part thereof for use in providing suitable housing accommodations for such state agencies. Thereupon such moneys shall be and they are hereby appropriated to the purpose herein, available in like manner as moneys appropriated in section 1.'

Pursuant to authority vested in it, the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions projected a building program, which they estimate will cost in excess of $10,000,000; they have entered into contracts for units of its construction aggregating $5,456,668, which is far in excess of the $3,000,000 appropriated by the Act. To supplement this amount, the Budget Commission has, in compliance with Section 2, made an examination of the funds appropriated to the different departments, boards, commissions, and institutions, has ascertained and determined that there existed a surplus in the funds of several of said departments over and above their requirements, and, by and with the consent of the Governor, the said Budget Commission did adopt a resolution setting aside and transferring sums to the State Building Fund, as follows:

1. July 24, 1945, $1,500,000 from the General Revenue Fund.

2. July 24, 1945, $300,000 from the General Inspection Fund.

3. November 23, 1945, $40,753 from the incidental account of the Farm Colony, in General Revenue Fund.

4. February 26, 1946, $16,000 from the Agricultural Experiment Station account, in General Revenue Fund.

5. February 26, 1946, $97,988 from State Hospital Special Maintenance Account, in General Revenue Fund.

6. March 5, 1946, $2,000 from Agricultural Experiment Station account, in General Revenue Fund.

7. March 19, 1946, $2,000,000 from the General Revenue Fund.

The State Treasurer has, in compliance with the Resolutions of the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions, credited the sums so enumerated to the account of the State Building Fund, but the Comptroller has declined to set them up on his books as debited against the several accounts to the credit of the State Building Fund and has refused to recognize them as proper to draw warrants against, as contemplated by the Act. The Board of Commissioners of State Institutions allege that they cannot let contracts for additional buildings or secure lands therefor until said funds are transferred and made available for the State Building Fund in payment of obligations arising from their contracts to carry out the bilding program.

On petition of the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions and the Budget Commission, alternative writ of mandamus was directed by this Court to the Comptroller, commanding him to account for the sums named in said resolutions and quoted herein and set them up on his books as debited against the several accounts enumerated in the resolution as credited to the State Building Fund, subject to warrants on vouchers to pay for public buildings, facilities, and sites, as contemplated by Chapter 22820. The cause is before us for determination on a motion to quash, a return to the alternative writ, and a motion for peremptory writ notwithstanding the return.

The first question with which we are confronted challenges the constitutional validity of Chapter 22820, Acts of 1945.

Respondent insists on a literal application of Section 1 of said Act, insofar as it relates to the building program. He contends, in other words, that the buildings and facilities with prices following them, indicated in groups A, B, and C, must be contracted for and constructed as the Act directs and not otherwise. We do not so construe the Act. We think that Section 1 contemplates a wide latitude of discretion on the part of the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions. Groups A, B, and C, and the figures thereafter, are mere estimates. The Board of Commissioners of State Institutions were expected to use it as a guide but could bend or modify it as they saw fit to accomplish the general legislative purpose. The actual construction and costs had to be determined from engineers' and architects' plans and specifications.

The point is also made that the Act is bad because of indefiniteness of the amount appropriated, but we find no support for this contention. The Legislature outlined a general building policy for the triple purposes defined in the Act. It made a flat appropriation of $3,000,000 and when appropriated such other sums as the Budget Commission found to be unneeded balances in the different funds, subject to transfer to the State Building Fund as provided in Section 2 of the Act. The program is limited to ten years, and the appropriation is limited both by the unneeded balances and by the amounts found to be necessary by architects and engineers to carry out the building program. It was subject to audit and change at each successive session of the Legislature.

In a public project the magnitude of this, it would hardly be possible to give a detailed specification for items of expenditure in the authorization with prices fluctuating as they are now. Some discretion must be vested in those who execute large plans for public benefit, and we think ample safeguards have been thrown around this one. So long as it is for a lawful purpose, the Legislature has absolute power over the public purse. The purpose of the expenditure in this case is not challenged; the assault is directed solely at the manner in which it is undertaken. The case of Carlton et al. v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301, 137 So. 815, and cases therein cited, is a complete answer to this contention.

It is next contended that the quoted provisions of Section 2, Chapter 22820, authorizing the Budget Commission to ascertain surpluses in the several State funds and, with the approval of the Governor, order them transferred to the State Building Fund, constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power.

There is no line demarking legislative, executive, and judicial powers in our scheme of constitutional government, though it is well known that in many instances these powers overlap. The quoted part of Section 2 authorizes the Budget Commission to examine the funds of departments, boards, commissions, institutions, and other State agencies and ascertain any surpluses or balances they may have on hand after their required services to the public have been performed. If any unneeded balances are found to exist, the Budget Commission, with the approval of the Governor, may transfer them to the State Building Fund to be used in executing the building program...