State ex rel. Casper v. Moore

• Decision Date: 09 May 1893
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CASPER ET AL. v. MOORE, AUDITOR.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

37 Neb. 13

55 N.W. 299

STATE EX REL. CASPER ET AL.

v.MOORE, AUDITOR.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 9, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a general appropriation bill, carrying an item of $15,000 for a specific purpose, was duly passed by both houses of the legislature, but by a clerical error of an enrolling clerk the $15,000 was afterwards changed to $25,000, and the bill was in this condition presented to and signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, and approved by the governor, held, that the bill appropriated $15,000 for the purpose specified therein.

2. Where a bill has been attested by the signature of the presiding officers of both branches of the legislature, and signed by the governor, it will not be declared invalid because of irregularities in the proceedings of the legislature, where no express provision of the constitution has been violated.

3. When the journals of the two houses of the legislature and the acts of the governor clearly manifest the intention of the lawmaking branches of the government, the courts will not permit the will of the people so manifested to be thwarted by the error or dishonesty of an enrolling clerk.

Commissioners' decision.

Submission without action, to the supreme court in its original jurisdiction, of a controversy between the state on the relation of C. B. Casper and others, and Eugene Moore, state auditor, to determine the validity of an appropriation bill.

BY THE COMMISSION.

This case was submitted under section 567 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows: “That in the general appropriation bill known as ‘House Roll No. 207 of the 23d session of the legislature of the state of Nebraska,’ after the said bill had been sent to the senate, and was there amended and returned to the house of representatives, the house of representatives then further amended the bill by including an item therein of $25,000 for the purpose of paying the expenses of impeachment proceedings; that said bill then went to the senate for concurrence in the house amendments, and was referred to a conference committee of the members of both houses, and by said conference committee was amended by reducing the amount of said appropriation from $25,000 to $15,000, as shown by its report, which report of said committee of conference was adopted by both houses after various conferences had thereon; that in enrolling said bill the enrolling clerk, by a clerical error, included in said enrolled bill said item to cover the expenses of said impeachment proceedings at the sum of $25,000 instead of $15,000, as reported by said conference committee, and adopted by both houses, which bill, as enrolled, was signed by the presiding officers of both houses, with an emergency clause attached thereto, and was thereupon approved and signed by the governor on April 10, 1893.” It will be observed from the facts set forth in the foregoing stipulation that the general appropriation bill as passed by both houses of the legislature carried an appropriation for impeachment proceedings of $15,000, but that when the bill reached the committee on engrossed and enrolled bills, by a clerical error the $15,000 was changed to $25,000, and in this condition it was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses and by the governor. The question, then, before us is this: Does this bill appropriate $25,000 for impeachment proceedings, or does it appropriate $15,000 for such proceedings, or does it fail to appropriate anything? Were the question a new one in this state, we would say that a bill duly deposited in the office of the secretary of state, bearing the signatures of the presiding officers of the respective houses of the legislature and of the governor, imports absolute verity, and that the courts could not look beyond the signatures of these officers to ascertain what either house has done as to any items in said bill. There are numerous authorities holding this view, among others, the supreme court of the United States. See Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495, where it is said on page 672, 143 U. S., and page 497, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep.: “The signing by the speaker of the house of representatives and by the president of the senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the president, that a bill, thus attested, has received in due form the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass congress shall be presented to...