State v. Clausen
| Decision Date | 11 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | 22925. |
| Citation | 160 Wash. 618,295 P. 751 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. DAVIS et al. v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Original mandamus proceeding by the State of Washington, on the relation of Arthur W. Davis and others, Regents of the State College of Washington, against C. W. Clausen, State Auditor to require respondent to issue warrants drawn on the State Treasurer.
Alternative writ quashed, and proceeding dismissed.
Davis Heil & Davis, of Spokane, for plaintiff.
John H Dunbar and E. W. Anderson, both of Olympia, for defendant.
Relators, the regents of the State College of Washington, filed in this court their original petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to the respondent, as state auditor, requiring him to issue, in connection with expenses incurred on behalf of the State College of Washington, five warrants drawn on the state treasurer as follows: One on the Morrill fund; one on the Hatch fund; one on the Smith-Lever fund; and two on the college fund of the State College of Washington. An alternative writ was issued, in response to which the respondent appeared and demurred to the petition and the alternative writ upon the ground that the same failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or to entitle plaintiffs to any relief by way of mandamus or otherwise. There being no dispute as to the facts, the matter is before us for final determination upon relators' petition and respondent's demurrer thereto.
Four different funds are involved in this litigation. The first three are federal aid funds, derived from land or other grants by the federal government; the last two items involve the so-called college fund, which is an administrative fund made up of receipts from fifty or so sources, including class room fees, dormitory rental, summer school tuition, and money derived from the sale of live stock, dairy products, etc. Respondent bases his refusal to draw the warrants above referred to upon the ground that there are no legislative appropriations covering the same, and that for this reason no lawful authority exists which justifies him in issuing the warrants
We shall, in the first instance, discuss the college fund, which is not a fund created by statute, but one established because of the necessities of the case to take care of receipts accruing from the sources hereinabove referred to. Similar revenues were considered by this court in the case of State ex rel. Johnson v. Clausen, 51 Wash. 548, 99 P. 743, in which it was held that money so received did not constitute finances of the state or of a department or institution thereof within the meaning of chapter 96, Laws of 1907 , requiring such moneys to be daily transmitted to the state treasurer. The matter of the disbursement of the money without any legislative appropriation was not referred to in the opinion, and, this matter having been called to the court's attention by a petition for rehearing, it was determined that that phase of the inquiry had become moot because the state Legislature at its 1909 session, by an act passed immediately after the case was decided, had made a specific appropriation covering the money involved. State ex rel. Johnson v. Clausen, 51 Wash. 689, 101 P. 835. From the court's opinion it seems clear that had this matter been specifically decided, the court would have held that no legislative appropriation was necessary in order to disburse the fund in view of the fact that the court held that the money in the fund was not included within the but comprised a special fund to be administered by the regents of the state college. The legislative appropriation of 1909, referred to in the order of this court entered on the petition for rehearing above mentioned, was of that portion of the fund which had been, as held by this court, erroneously deposited with the state treasurer, and authorized its repayment to the state college. The Legislature, at its 1909 special session, enacted chapter 9, Laws Ex. Sess. 1909 , which reads as follows:
Since the enactment of this law, which it seems reasonable to suppose was passed by the state Legislature in view of the opinion of this court in the case of State ex rel. Johnson v. Clausen, supra, all moneys accruing from any of the sources referred to in the act have been paid to the state treasurer, and by him allocated to an appropriate fund bearing a descriptive designation. These funds have been disbursed on order of the regents of the college, the Legislature having made no specific biennial appropriation of the same, evidently upon the theory that section 5527, supra, because of the provision thereof that 'when so deposited the same shall be held as special funds for said college, and are hereby appropriated to the uses and purposes for which the same are received,' either rendered any legislative appropriation unnecessary, or constituted a standing or continuing appropriation of the moneys accruing to the respective funds.
Relators contend, inter alia, that the four funds with which we are here concerned, being expressly designated by section 5527 as special funds for the state college, should be subject to the order of the board of regents, and do not require legislative appropriation.
Section 4, article 8, of the state Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it remained until amended by vote of the people in November, 1922, read as follows:
'No moneys shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this state, or any of its funds, or any of the funds under its management, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law; nor unless such payment be made within two years from the first day of May next after the passage of such appropriation act, and every such law making a new appropriation, or continuing or reviving an appropriation, shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated, and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such sum.'
This section, as above stated, was amended in 1922 to read as follows:
'No moneys shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this state, or any of its funds, or any of the funds under its management, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law; nor unless such payment be made within one calendar month after the end of the next ensuing fiscal biennium, and every such law making a new appropriation, or continuing or reviving an appropriation, shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated, and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such sum.' As far as the questions with which we are here concerned are affected by the foregoing section of the state Constitution, the changes in the law effected by the amendment are not material.
The foregoing provision of the Constitution was first considered by this court in the case of State ex rel. Attorney General v. McGraw, 13 Wash. 311, 43 P. 176, which arose out of the proposal to exchange warrants on the capitol building fund at par for cash, the cash to be held by the state treasurer and disbursed for labor and material furnished in the course of the erection of the state capitol building then under construction. There had been set up a state capitol building fund into which was to be placed money received from the sale of lands comprised within the state capitol land grant. From this fund the sum of $225,000 had been appropriated for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1894 and a somewhat greater sum for the next fiscal year (Laws of 1893, chap. 138, § 15, p. 470). The fund being short, apparently because of the failure to sell land comprised within the grant, it was decided to issue warrants against the fund at the time of the signing of the building contract, which warrants were to be sold at par, and place the proceeds in a special account in the state treasury to be disbursed by the treasurer on certificates issued by the capitol commission based on estimates as the construction progressed, it being provided that the amount of warrants so issued and sold should not exceed the amount of the appropriation which remained unexpended. This procedure constituted, as a practical proposition, a borrowing by the capitol building fund, the money realized from the sale of the warrants to be repaid by funds to be received at some later time from the sale of capitol grant lands. This court held that such a plan did not create any state debt (see also State ex rel. State Capitol Committee v. Clausen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. STATE, DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
...v. Spellman, 99 Wash.2d 815, 827, 664 P.2d 1227 (1983); State v. Collins, 55 Wash.2d 469, 470, 348 P.2d 214 (1960); State v. Clausen, 160 Wash. 618, 632, 295 P. 751 (1931). Water rights in Washington have long been understood to be usufructuary in nature— they only constitute a right to use......
-
ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES v. State
...we have made it clear that the disbursement of treasury funds must be preceded by a clear appropriation. In State v. Clausen, 160 Wash. 618, 630, 295 P. 751 (1931), we held the earmarking of funds within the treasury for a general purpose does not alone constitute an appropriation of those ......
-
State v. Manro
...99 Wash.2d 815, 827, 664 P.2d 1227 (1983); State v. Collins, 55 Wash.2d 469, 470, 348 P.2d 214 (1960); State ex rel. Davis v. Clausen, 160 Wash. 618, 632, 295 P. 751 (1931)). 20. E.g., 18 U.S.C.A. § 5032 (requiring that further proceedings against a juvenile be held pursuant to the juvenile......
-
Ajax v. Gregory
... ... Ajax against Luther E. Gregory and others, ... individually and purporting to act as a board under the name ... of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, and others ... From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals ... Affirmed ... [32 P.2d ... Constitution ... [177 ... Wash. 475] In State ex rel. State Capitol Committee v ... Clausen, 134 Wash. 196, 235 P. 364, 366, it is said: ... 'The legislative act under discussion expressly provides ... that the principal and ... ...