
    In the matter of the Executive Communication of February 19, 1872, relative to the constitutionality of the 3d Section of Appropriation Bill.
    A law making appropriations for salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the State, cannot, under the Constitution, contain pro - visions upon any other subject; and a clause in such an act, prescribing the manner in which public dues may be paid, is void.
    
      To the Honorable the Judges of the
    
    
      Supreme Court of the State of Florida:
    
    In section 30 of Article IY of the Constitution of the State of Florida, it is provided as follows : “ Laws making appropriations for the salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the State, shall contain provisions on no other subject;” but in the General Appropriation Bill enacted by the present session of the Legislature, section 3 reads as follows:
    “ Section 3. That all Comptroller’s warrants and Treasurer’s certificates, issued since the first day of January, 1872, except for services rendered prior to January 1st, 1872, shall be receivable for all State dues incurred since January 1st, 1872, excepting interest on the public debt, sinking fund, and school fund.”
    And I now have the honor to solicit the opinion of the Judges of the Supreme Court upon the proper construction to be put upon the aforesaid section 3 of the General Appropriation Bill, in the light of the above quoted prohibition of the Constitution.
    In such light, is or is not section 3 of said General Appropriation Bill rendered absolutely void and of no effect %
    
    I have the honor to be, with respect,
    Sam’l T. Hay, Aeting Governor.
    
    February 19, 1872.
   Supreme Court Room, Tallahassee, Fla.,

Ilis Excellency Samuel T. Hay,

Lieut, and Acting Governor of Florida :

Sir : Tour communication of this date is received.

The effect- of the clause- of the Constitution which you mention is to render everything in a law which may be called strictly “ a law making appropriations” unconstitutional which proposes to do anything other than make appropriations. The thii’d section of the “General Appro-' priation Bill,” which you call to our atteution, does not make an appropriation, and for this reason it is in oxxr opinion unconstitutional and therefore void.

Yery respectfully,

James H. Westcott, Jr.,

For the Court.  