Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

priations made under such statutes are placed on the annual appropriation bills and are submitted to the finance committees who have, however, no power to materially alter them. They can, at most, run up or down the scale of a certain number of appropriations which must in any case be kept up. . . .

When the appropriation and supply bills are introduced to the Assembly, which is usually done on a date before determined upon, the Assembly immediately resolves itself into committee of the whole. The bills are then considered item by item, and section by section, criticisms and suggestions being very freely offered by members of the committee. The bills are defended by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and explanations of new appropriations or changes in the old are made by him. It is always the endeavor of the Ways and Means Committee to have their bills passed with as little alteration as possible, and to this end they devote all their energies. It shows not only that they enjoy the confidence of the Legislature, but also that they are in touch with their constituents and familiar with their needs, and upon this they particularly pride themselves.

This is the nearest approach to the responsible English ministry, upon the acceptance of whose budgets depends their stay in office, which we possess. It is, however, less a matter of responsibility with our Committee on Ways and Means than a desire to make political capital out of it; to be able to point to the record made as chairman of that committee when putting forward a claim to the nomination for governor next term.

The Assembly is invariably delayed with amendments or with bills containing new appropriations by individual members. Members with pet little appropriation bills of their own endeavor to have them accepted by the Committee on Ways and Means, and to have them inserted in the supply bill, as they then stand a better chance of being passed than if they were exposed alone and unsupported to the fire of criticism of the House. Many of the states have inserted provisions in their constitutions forbidding the inclusion in the general appropriation bill of any appropriations except those "for the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state, interest on the public debt and for public schools.

All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing one subject." This provision prevents also the addition of "riders" to the general appropriation bills. It is found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. A new section was inserted in the revised constitution of New York which aims to prevent this abuse in that state. It is as follows: "No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the annual appropriation or supply bill, unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation in the bill; and any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to such appropriation."

Although in accordance with a long-established precedent, bills appropriating money usually originate in the lower branch of the Legislature, the Senate has always reserved to itself the fullest possible privileges in the matter of amendments to these as well as all other bills. The Senate invariably makes amendments, if for no other reason than to show its right to do so, and to justify the popular belief that the Senate is a more competent body than the Assembly. There is not that great difference of opinion in the two branches, however, as to the proper size of the appropriations in our state Legislatures which distinguishes the passage of the federal appropriation bills by Congress. In the state Legislature it is difficult to say which is the more liberal or economical, though in the long run the Senate is probably the more conservative. As has been noted before, only four states have constitutional provisions as to the place of origination of appropriation bills. When such bills reach the Senate after having been sent from the Assembly, they are referred first to the Finance Committee, and then reported by it to the Senate. Their treatment in the Senate is similar to that in the lower branch; and after passing the Senate they are returned with their new figures and amendments to the Assembly.

In case the bills as returned are not accepted by the Assembly, a Conference Committee is appointed of members from each House to adjust the differences. They seldom fail to agree, and more often than not adopt the Assembly's figures

in the bill they finally report. It happens very infrequently that supplies are refused because of a failure to agree. The same mode of procedure is followed in all the states in this respect.

There is not the same chronic complaint of underappropriations heard in our state Legislatures, as in the case of Congress, where a deficiency bill is to be considered as regularly as the annual session opens. In fact there is greater danger of too large than of too small appropriations. Toward the end of the session, however, a supplemental supply bill is often introduced to make provision for deficiencies under the other grants or provide for new items of appropriation.

Such is, in brief, the method of dealing with general appropriation bills in the New York State Legislature. Far different is the treatment of individual appropriation bills introduced by members. As soon as the committees are organized any member can introduce bills, and the right is practically without limit until toward the close of a session; and then only because of the physical impossibility on the part of the committees of considering new bills and the practical certainty that they will be "smothered" if they are referred. Private appropriation bills are not necessarily referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, as might be expected, but to the committees on canals, cities, or what not, for which the appropriation is designed. In other words, if a bill making an appropriation for deepening the Erie Canal in a certain locality were introduced by a member, it would be referred to the Committee on Canals and reported by them to the House. As such a committee is made up of men who live along the borders of the canal and who are pledged to their constituents to spend money on it, there is little chance of the bill being unfavorably reported. It is chiefly in connection with these bills that "log-rolling," as this exchange of political favors is called ("you roll my log and I'll roll yours"), occurs, and of course the rooms of these committees are the chief scene of this sport. Mississippi is the only state whose constitution recognizes the existence of this evil and attempts to prohibit it by legislative enactment. "Log-rolling" is there defined as a felony, punishable by imprisonment of from one to ten years.

Hearings, usually anything but formal, are given to interested parties on proposed bills, and it is often possible to influence the chairman of a committee to report favorably. They are seldom averse to so reporting appropriation bills. When a day is appointed by a committee for hearings on a proposed bill, notice is given to the advocates of the bill; and if, by any happy accident, adversaries to the bill know that a measure is pending which they wish to oppose, they also have a chance to be heard. There is no attempt made to take proof and the treatment of bills at these hearings is anything but judicial. If the bill involves large interests, the more effective work is done by trained lobbyists. After a bill has reached the Legislature, too, its course may be and usually is favored by lobbying. So great had this latter evil become in some of our states that in three of them-California, Georgia, and Oregon - lobbying was declared a felony. In New York it is forbidden on the floor of the House.

The length of time for which appropriations are granted and during which they are available varies in different states. New York, and in eight other states, the constitution provides that all payments under any specific appropriation must be made within two years of the passage of such appropriation act. All balances then unexpended revert, usually, to the general fund, unless reappropriated. In sixteen other commonwealths the period is limited by legislative enactment to two years, or a similar period terminating after the opening of the next session of the Legislature. In six of the commonwealths appropriations are good until they are exhausted or until the act making them is repealed. I could find no mention of the subject in either the constitutions or statute law of the remaining commonwealths, so that we may infer that no time limit is set to the period of their availability.

87. Municipal Legislation. The procedure of American municipalities is described by Dr. F. R. Clow as follows:1

1 The Administration of City Finances in the United States. In Publications of the American Economic Association, Third Series, Vol. II (1901). Reprinted with permission of the author and the Economic Association.

I. REASONS FOR THE DEvelopment OF CITY BUDGETS

For various reasons the cities of the United States have surpassed the state and federal governments in the development of their budgetary procedure. The chief reason is the situation the city finds itself in as regards revenue and expenditure.

Revenue comes mostly from a direct tax levied on the capital value of property. For two thirds of the cities the charters fix a maximum rate that may be levied, and half of these find it necessary to levy up to the maximum. Philadelphia, Nashville, and Richmond, though not limited by charters, have adhered to the same rates for many years. Then as local expenditures far exceed those of the state or county, the city rate is the most potent factor in making the total rate high or low. City councils are in closer touch with the people than state legislatures, and all taxes are assessed and collected by local authorities; so the city government feels the full force of the universal aversion to paying taxes, and will increase the tax rate only under dire necessity. For all cities, therefore, revenue is limited either by charter, or custom, or what the taxpayers will stand.

Consider alongside of this fact the multitude of services and the tremendous demands for expenditure which are being forced upon local government by modern urban life, under the direction of modern science and engineering. This means that city governments must "cut the coat according to the cloth," and apportion the limited revenue among the various services on a .comprehensive plan in which all are given their relative importance. Haphazard appropriations like those of the federal government and of most state governments would be intolerable.

The restriction of city autonomy is an important factor. Under the tutelage of the state legislature the city government is often compelled to follow budgetary procedure, sometimes wholesome and sometimes not, which the legislature will not impose upon itself. One such requirement, existing almost universally, is that the city shall levy its tax for specific purposes so much for schools, so much for parks, so much for debt — and not a single sum or rate for the aggregate expenditure; the limit to the tax that a city may levy is usually in the

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »