State ex rel. Jones v. Atterbury
| Decision Date | 08 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | 45780,Nos. 45622,s. 45622 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri at the relation of Jack C. JONES, Relator, v. Newton ATTERBURY, State Comptroller of the State of Missouri, Respondent. STATE of Missouri at the relation of William M. TURPIN, Relator, v. Newton ATTERBURY, State Comptroller of the State of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Jack C. Jones, Carrollton, relator pro se.
William M. Turpin, Bowling Green, relator pro se.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Donald D. Guffey and Fred L. Howard, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
These original proceedings in mandamus seek to require the state comptroller to preapprove or certify the expense accounts of the relators incurred by them in their attendance at the meetings of investigatory committees of the General Assembly held when the General Assembly was not in regular or special session. One was a Committee on Water Resources created by the Senate alone, and the other a Committee on Juvenile Delinquency created by concurrent action of both houses of the General Assembly. The two actions have been consolidated for purposes of argument and decision.
Cause No. 45,622 involves the Senate Committee on Water Resources. Senate Resolution No. 100 creating this committee is as follows:
'Be It Resolved that the president pro tem appoint a committee of five senators to study water resources and rights in water in this state and to recommend a water use policy for the state of Missouri. The committee shall reports its findings and recommendations to the Sixty-ninth General Assembly; and
'Be It Further Resolved, that the state geologist, the division of resources and development and all other agencies of the state government shall cooperate with the committee and shall furnish such information and assistance as the committee may require; and
'Be It Further Resolved that the Committee on Legislative Research be requested to provide such professional, clerical and other staff services as the committee may require in the performance of its duties; and
'Be It Further Resolved that the actual and necessary expenses of the committee and of the members of the committee shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate.'
This resolution was offered in the Senate of the Sixty-eighth General Assembly of Missouri on May 5, 1955, and was adopted on May 12, 1955. Relator Jones is one of five members of the Senate appointed May 31, 1955 to membership on the committee. A meeting of the committee was held in Jefferson City on January 11, 1956 at which time the General Assembly was not in session. On January 31, 1956, relator forwarded to the respondent comptroller the account of his actual and necessary expenses in the amount of $18.25 incurred in attending the committee meeting.
Cause No. 45,780 involves the Joint Committee on Juvenile Delinquency which purported to be created by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 10. This resolution is as follows:
'Be It Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that a special joint committee of ten members be appointed to investigate the problems of juvenile and youthful offenders under twenty-one years of age and the laws, practices, procedures and services relating thereto. The committee shall consist of five members of the Senate, appointed by the president pro tem of the Senate, and five members of the House, appointed by the speaker of the House. The committee shall prescribe its own organization and rules of procedure, and
'Be It Further Resolved, that the committee may create advisory committees of interested citizens; and
'Be It Further Resolved, that the Committee on Legislative Research be requested to provide such professional, clerical and other services as the committee may require in the performance of their duties; and
'Be It Further Resolved, that the committees shall prepare and submit a report to the Sixty-ninth General Assembly together with such recommendations as it deems appropriate; and
This resolution was duly adopted in the Missouri Senate on May 2, 1955, and in the House of Representatives on May 6, 1955. Pursuant to the provisions of the resolution, the speaker of the House appointed the relator Turpin as one of five House members. The president pro tem of the Senate likewise appointed five members to membership on the committee. The Joint Committee on Juvenile Delinquency met in Jefferson City on June 19, 1956, at which time the General Assembly was not in session. Relator Turpin incurred expense in the amount of $14.88 in attending the meeting of the committee.
The respondent state comptroller refused to approve the expense accounts of the relators Jones and Turpin on the ground that the committees were without lawful authority to function and incur expenses while the General Assembly was not in session. The cases are before the court on the petitions of the relators, the returns of the respondent, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties.
In brief, the respondent contends that neither the Senate alone, nor the General Assembly, acting by a joint or concurrent resolution, has the power to create a committee with authority to sit after sine die adjournment of the General Assembly; that the attempt by concurrent resolution to confer authority on a joint committee to sit after sine die adjournment is further in violation of the Missouri constitution because the resolution was not presented to the governor for his consideration or proceeded upon as in the case of a bill; and, finally, that relators cannot prevail in any event because the resolutions do not specifically or by clear and unmistakable implication authorize the committees in question to function after adjournment of the General Assembly sine die.
Article III, Sec. 1, of the 1945 Constitution, V.A.M.S., vests the legislative power of the State of Missouri 'in a senate and house of representatives to be styled 'The General Assembly of the State of Missouri.'' The legislative power has been so vested since Missouri became a state. Art. III, Sec. 1, Constitution of 1820, V.A.M.S., Art. IV, Sec. 1, Constitutions of 1865 and 1875, V.A.M.S.
The constitution of the State of Missouri is not a grant but a restriction or limitation on the legislative powers; therefore the General Assembly has all legislative powers not denied it by the constitution. Bohrer v. Toberman, 360 Mo. 244, 227 S.W.2d 719, 722; Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977, 988.
The constitution, in general, is subject to the same rules of construction as other laws, due regard being given to its broader scope and objects, as a charter of popular government, and the intent of the organic law is the primary object to be attained in construing it. State ex rel. Harry L. Hussman Refrigerator & Supply Co. v. City of St. Louis, 319 Mo. 497, 5 S.W.2d 1080, 1084. The constitution must be read as a whole and seemingly conflicting provisions should be harmonized so as to give effect to the whole. State ex rel. Moore v. Toberman, 363 Mo. 245, 250 S.W.2d 701, 705; State on Inf. of McKittrick v. Williams, 346 Mo. 1003, 144 S.W.2d 98, 103.
The other branches of the state government are prohibited from exercising any powers belonging to the General Assembly 'except in the instances in this Constitution expressly directed or permitted.' Art. II, Sec. 1, Constitution of 1945. It follows that the courts cannot interfere with the action of the legislative branch unless the action taken is clearly contrary to some constitutional mandate. Bohrer v. Toberman, 360 Mo. 244, 227 S.W.2d 719, 723-724. It is in this atmosphere that we must consider the questions presented. They are before the court for the first time and their determination is not without difficulty.
The respondent concedes that incidental and auxiliary to its power to enact legislation, the General Assembly, or either of its houses, has the inherent and implied power to create investigatorial committees with authority to sit while the General Assembly is in session for the purpose of developing information relative to prospective legislation. We adopt this view, which is in accord with the overwhelming weight of state and federal authority. See In re Southard, Cal., 83 P.2d 932, 935[1, 2], and 28 A.L.R. 1154 (annotation). Respondent contends, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mandel v. O'Hara
... ... Roy L. Mason (Angus R. Everton, Gary R. Jones, Montedonico & Mason, Chartered, Baltimore, on brief), for respondents ... of officials and employees in the executive branch of federal, state and local governments is by no means as relatively clear-cut as ... Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371 (Colo.1985) (en banc); Stong v. People ex rel. Curran, 74 Colo. 283, 220 P. 999 (1923); State ex rel. Brassey v ... Attorney General, 300 Mich. 200, 1 N.W.2d 510 (1942); State v. Atterbury, 300 S.W.2d 806 (Mo.1957) (en banc); City of Long Beach v. Public Serv ... ...
-
City of Hannibal v. Winchester
...passed by a viva-voce vote, without calling the ayes and noes, whereupon, when engrossed, it becomes operative.' In State ex rel. Jones v. Atterbury, Mo., 300 S.W.2d 806, 817, this court in banc stated: 'Generally, it may be said that a legislative body uses a resolution to express an opini......
-
Joint Legislative Committee of Legislature v. Strain
...A. 601, 604; Steward v. Rust, 221 Ark. 286, 252 S.W.2d 816; Wilder v. American Produce Co., Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 936, 938.' State v. Atterbury, 300 S.W.2d 806 Mo. "Resolution' is also defined as meaning a suggestion or direction in writing, concurred in by the two houses of the assembly......
-
State ex rel. Overhulse v. Appling
...of legislators incurred in serving after adjournment on a duly constituted interim committee may be paid. See State ex rel. Jones v. Atterbury, Mo. 1957, 300 S.W.2d 806; State ex rel. James v. Aronson, 132 Mont. 120, 314 P.2d 849, 858. However, no authority has been cited for the position t......