*1 the Utah DEAN, as President Ernest H. al., Senate, Plaintiffs et Respondents, al., RAMPTON, Governor, et L.
Calvin Appellants. Defendants
No. 14518.
Supreme Court of Utah. 21,
Oct.
206 a
ney
shall constitute Board of
General
Commissioners
Prison
State
also,
shall,
They
.
.
consti-
[etc.]
power
tute a Board of
against the
to examine all claims
of offi-
law,
by
perform such oth-
cers
and
fixed
law;
prescribed by
as
er duties
be
State, except
and
claim
compensation of
for salaries and
law,
be
Legislature
having been consid-
without
Atty. Gen.,
Romney,
Paul M.
Vernon B.
and acted
the said Board
ered
City,
Tinker,
Gen.,
Atty.
Salt Lake
Asst.
of Examiners.
appellants.
defendants
63-2-15,
Leslie,
Mecham,
(3) of
U.C.A.
George
Subsection
Sec.
M.
Melvin E.
plaintiffs
states:
Atkin,
plain-
relied
City, for
Gary E.
Salt Lake
respondents.
tiffs
for other travel ex-
Reimbursement
obligation
penses
shall be
incurred. No
CROCKETT, Justice:
for travel outside of the state
incurred
Plaintiffs,
Forty-first
members of the
approval of the
the advance
without
Legislature
to
(1975) brought this action
through the director
board of examiners
validity
test
(3)
of subsection
of Sec.
consist
approval shall
of finance. Such
63-2-15, U.C.A.1953,
below,
ap-
as
quoted
availability
as to the
of a certification
expenses
plicable to their claims for
in-
as a
of the necessi-
funds as well
review
in attending
curred
the national convention
desirability
ty
of such travel. This
Legislatures
Philadelphia
to the
apply
legislature,
shall not
section
October,
They
1975.
their
submitted
committees,
or em-
member
its
Auditor,
to
who in turn
ployee of same.
referred them the
to
defendant Board
(herein Board).
Examiners
The Board
statute, it
to that
reference
to authorize
of the claims
refused
acknowledged that under our
should be
because
not been submitted for
had
system
legislature, representing the
prior approval
prescribed by
as
that stat-
people, indeed
all of the fundamental
ute. Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Dis-
power
sovereign
of the
to make whatever
compel payment
trict Court
to
of the
general
laws
deems
Upon
agreed
claims.
an
statement of facts
power is
But even that
welfare.1
parties
summary
for a
each moved
purpose
without limit. The
constitu
judgment. The court ruled in favor
orderly
provide
tion
to
an
foundation
plaintiffs.
appeal.
Defendants
keep
to
even
sov
The issue confronted here concerns the
here,
applicable
people
ereign (as
interpretation,
priority
application, and
to
through
within
legislature)
their
its
be
the statute
to
referred
as com-
Therefore,
legislative
bounds.
pared
provision,
to our constitutional
Sec.
frame
itself must
exercised within the
which states:
Accordingly, it
of the constitution.
work
provided by law,
long
been so
and universal
established
Until otherwise
necessary
Secretary
ly recognized,
hardly
Governor,
Attor-
as
of State and
Budge,
P.2d 516.
Statement
Wood v.
2d
374
See
statutory
that if
contra-
enactment
sense that the Legislature has made an
constitution,
any provision
venes
of an amount certain to a
governs.2
latter
person.”
named
further,
And
definite
under
provision
constitutional
“all
There is
but that
subject
are
to action
the board
general purpose of the
statute is
above
sal-
*3
examiners, except only claims
‘sala-
of
for
utary
in harmony
with the constitu-
compensation
ries and
by
of officers fixed
tion,
but the serious
arises as to
”
here,
Similarly
law.’
while there
sentence,
purports
its last
exempt
which
appropriation
been a general
for travel ex-
legislature
members of
its
em-
penses,
there has been no
for
ployees
requirement.
from its
To be
against
weighed
provision
per-
that
we must
an amount certain to a definite named
consider
to be
13
effect
Sec.
of
son which could be classified as either sal-
quoted
Article VII of our Constitution
(All
ary
compensation
or
fixed
law.
subject
above. It has been the
of contro-
opinion
ours.)
emphases in this
are
versy before this Court in a number of
general principle underlying
cases.3
that series of
it has
cases
been
that,
looking
provision
reasoned
at the structure
referred to and
the constitutional
government
provided
of our state
as
in our
explained in the
as
application thereof
constitution,
state
the examination of
is that
Board
thereon
adjudicated cases
auditing
claims as an
function was intend-
of
performs the function
Examiners
of
auditor;
performed by
ed to be
state
or
possible excesses
against
safeguarding
13,
provision
and that the
of Sec.
public funds.
disbursement
in the
abuses
gives
major
three
constitu-
which
sug
it is not
emphasis that
say with
We
governor,
secretary
officers, the
tional
any
or
excess
that
there
gested here
attorney general “power to
and the
But
claims.
particular
in these
abuse
except
against
claims
all
examine
this constitutional
principle embodied
fixed
compensation of officers
salaries' or
safeguard,
such
that there
provision,
something
.
.
be-
by law
.
intended
a claim
asserts
anyone who
applies to
is,
yond
auditing of
that
the mere
claims:
State,
member of
by a
even
against
explained therein, which
for reasons
need
specific
itself,
only the
except
legislature
here,
supervisory control
repetition
no
some
compen
for salaries
therein
exception
against
the State other than
over
by law.
fixed
sation of
.expressly excepted.4
those
con-
that
grounded
as so
The law
developed
as
provision and
In the case of Uintah State Bank
stitutional
the es-
has been
thereon
Ajax,5
decisions
v.
which dealt with the
the cited
dec-
many
for
of this
law
State
killing predatory
bounties for
tablished
animals
mem-
exemption of
ap
from
ades.
It contains
(coyotes)
a fund which had been
anyone
It
else.
legislature or
propriated
said,
purpose,
to that
court
bers
been,
as
regarded, as
should be
“the claims here are not fixed
law in
242,
Comm.,
P.2d
70
Marbury Madison,
137,
95 Utah
Road
v.
1
v. State
2.
2
Cranch
L.Ed.
Examiners,
;
(1937)
60;
Betensen,
121,
Board
Bateman v.
v.
State
14
857
2d
378
Utah
(1958) ;
221,
Toronto
381
322 P.2d
2d
P.2d 669.
7 Utah
(1964).
403,
Clyde,
P.2d
2d
393
795
v.
15 Utah
g.
Edwards,
3.
rel.
E.
ex
Davis v.
33
above, 15
Clyde,
3
v.
footnote
243,
Toronto
(1908);
4. See
93
Thoreson
Utah
P. 720
v.
405,
795.
187,
at
393 P.2d
2d
Utah
Bd.
21
60
P.
Utah
(1900);
State,
v.
42
982
Wilkinson
Utah
(1913);
State,
297
Utah
P.
The state others, attorney general appertaining constitute to either ex- and the upon subsequent Board not here con- action them do to It should be noted we prerogative is dealt with That matter as to the of Examiners. front Budge, Wood upon legislature these footnote 1 above. case of act the full to expressly direct- me them. cept in the cases herein this matter the legislature already appropriated permitted.1 funds, ed or and consequently there no need to have the point. example An will illustrate legislature pass upon the matter. $1,000 legislature appropriates to The expenses. Supreme traveling Court 13, Article VII of Section our Constitu- that it would be The Court decides tion reads: to advantageous to also, They shall, constitute a send one of its members to Denver to at- Board of with to ex- appellate regional tend a conference of against all except amine coping justices to means of discuss compensation of officers the encroachment the federal into courts law, perform such other though state affairs. Even funds have prescribed law; duties as already appropriated legisla- been and the State, no claim for sal- claim, pass upon ture is not called aries and of officers fixed no member of this Court can attend by law, shall be Leg- unless, until, conference he secures having islature without been considered permission of the Board of Examiners. and acted the said Board of Ex- The same true for members of the aminers. legislature. matter, In the instant members Although legislators in this case the had legislature attended a convention already been an which, them, appropriate. seemed *5 money trip, they claimed that trip was and was authorized they may use it did ask not because not regulations department rules and of that permission department in of the executive government. No claim is made to the con- governor advance. If the does not want trary by appellants only herein. The proper trip, he legislators to make a complaint made that the members of the legislature did not come on bended knee bill when it should veto the permission with hat in hand ask up approval. comes department from the executive if agree holding and rea- I cannot go. might expenses If the during incurred prevailing opinion and would soning trip meaning are claims within the holding in prior accord- overrule all cases Constitution, Section Article VII of the ance therewith. legislature may appropriate then the not money pay them until the Board judgment of the trial I would affirm the Examiners has first had a exam- chance to court. expressly provided legislature may (4) pass
1. Cases for are: a claim The (1) legislature my impeach The officers Exam- until the Board of the state (Article departments VII, (Article the other have considered it iners shall 17-21, inclusive). 13). Sections Section (2) may enlarge judicial (Article may Supreme (5) districts issue Court writs I.t VIII, 6). quo mandamus, prohibition, af- Section warranto (3) judge gov- fecting It remove a from office other divisions (Article VIII, 11). 4). (Article VIII, Section Section ernment