IN RE ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court advised Governor John W. Martin that he cannot lawfully sign a warrant authorizing disbursement of state funds for legislative per diem payments exceeding the constitutional limit of six dollars per day, regardless of legislative authorization to the contrary.
The Governor may not sign such a warrant. Although appropriations must be made by law to draw money from the treasury, appropriations cannot authorize disbursement of amounts exceeding constitutional limitations, and the Governor's authority to countersign warrants for legislative pay is expressly limited by the Constitution to six dollars per day plus mileage.
“while Section 24 of Article IV requires all orders for the disbursement of State funds to be countersigned by the Governor, yet Section 4, Article III, limits the authority of the Governor to countersign orders or warrants drawn upon State funds for "the pay of members of the Senate and House of Representatives" to amounts that in the aggregate "shall not exceed six dollars a day for each day of session and mileage to and from their homes to the seat of government, not to exceed ten cents a mile each way, by the nearest and most practicable route."”
Establishes the constitutional ceiling on legislative compensation and the Governor's limited authority to authorize payment beyond that limit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Legislature passed Chapter 11337 during an extraordinary session in November 1925, which authorized an additional four dollars per day in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Separation Of Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
To the Honorable, The Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla. Gentlemen: Under the provisions of Section 13 of Article 4 of the Constitution of Florida, I have the honor to request your written opinion affecting my powers and duties as Chief Executive under the following provisions of the Constitution : Section 24 of Article 4 provides: "The Treasurer shall receive and keep all funds, bonds, and other securities, in such manner as may he prescribed by law, and shall disburse no funds, nor issue bonds, or other securities, except upon the order of the Comptroller countersigned by the Governor, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law.”
Amongst other things, Section 4 of Article 3 provides: “ * * * The pay of members of the Senate and House of Eepresentatives shall not exceed six dollars a day for each day of session and mileage to and from their homes to the seat of government, not to exceed ten cents.a mile each way, by the nearest and most practicable route.”
Chapter 11337, Laws of Florida, passed at the extraordinary session of the Legislature which convened on November 17th, 1925, which Chapter has now become a law, amongst other things provides: '“Section 4.
The members of the House of Eepresentatives of the present extraordinary session of the Legislature shall also be allowed an additional amount for necessary extra expenses, not to exceed four dollars per day.
The same to be paid out of the appropriation for expense of the extraordinary session of the Legislature (begun November 17 th, 1925).” A warrant, drawn on the State Treasurer for the disbursement of State funds, under the supposed authority of said Chapter 11337, Section 4, has been presented to me for my signature as required by the Constitution.
Will you please advise me whether or not in view of the foregoing Constitutional provisions I may lawfully affix my signature, as Governor, to the warrant aforesaid for the disbursement of State funds.
Eespectfully, JOHN W.
MAETIN, ' Governor. Tallahassee, Florida, December 3rd, 1925.
To His Excellency, John W.
Martin, Governor. Sir: In reply to your enquiry made under Section 13 of Article IV of the Constitution you are advised that while under Section 4, Article IX of the Constitution, “no money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of appropriations made by law” (In re Advisory Opinion, 43 Fla. 305, 31 South.
Rep. 348; in re Advisory Opinion, 79 Fla. 137, 83 South.
Rep. 672), yet appropriations of amounts not .within the limitations contained in the Constitution, can not lawfully be disbursed (State ex rel.
Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 75, 5 South.
Rep. 698; State ex rel.
Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 86, 5 South.
Rep. 703; State ex rel.
Mitchell v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407, 7 South.
Rep. 873); and that while Section 24 of Article IV requires all orders for the disbursement of State funds to be countersigned by the Governor, yet Section 4, Article III, limits the authority of the Governor to countersign orders or warrants drawn upon State funds for “the pay of members of the Senate and House of Representatives” to amounts that in the aggregate “shall not exceed six dollars a day for each day of session and mileage to and from their homes to the seat of government, not to exceed ten cents a mile each way, by the nearest and most practicable route.”
The fact that legislation purports to authorize the payment of sums in excess of the limitations imposed by the Constitution and to appropriate an amount in excess of the organic limitation, can not authorize such payments from State funds in violation of the express provisions of the Constitution.
Very respectfully, J. B.
WHITFIELD, W. H.
ELLIS, GLENN TERRELL, LOUIE W.
STRUM, ARMSTEAD BROWN, Justices.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Advisory Opinion to Governor David Sholtz on Auth. to Countersign Certain State Warrants for Salaries Due Cir. Judges, 114 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1934)…he Constitution to be countersigned will be in violation of any provision of the Constitution, should he countersign the particular warrant as he contemplates doing. See: In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 13 Fla. 699; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 90 Fla. 708, 107 Sou. Rep. 366; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 94 Fla. 967, 114 Sou. Rep. 850. Under Section 23 of Article IV of the Constitution, the Comptroller is required to examine, audit, adjust and s'ettle the accounts of all officers of the State, while…
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 156 Fla. 48 (Fla. 1945)…s of the limitations imposed by the Constitution and to appropri-. ate an amount in excess of the organic limitations, cannot authorize such payments from State funds in violation of the express provisions of the Constitution.” See Advisory Opinion, 90 Fla. 708, 107 So. 366. As we understand Section 1 of Chapter 21933, Acts of 1943, in so far as it refers to a resolution of either House, it authorizes “such expenses of the Legislature as shall be authorized by a resolution of either House.” The reference…1 / 2
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 103 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1931)…has been made by law for drawing the warrant as In Re Advisory Opinion, 43 Fla. 305, 31 South. Rep. 348, or where there is a definite appropriation as in Advisory Opinion to Governor, 79 Fla. 137, 83 South. Rep. 672; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 90 Fla. 708, 107 South. Rep. 366; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 98 Fla. 843, 124 South. Rep. 728; but the enquiry is whether the Governor is authorized to countersign warrants drawn on the State Treasurer for the rental charges of a road leased from private p…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. A. J. Russell v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1889)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. C. L. Mitchell v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1890)
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 43 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1901)
- State Ex Rel. A. J. Russell v. Wm. D. Barnes, 25 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1889)
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 79 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1920)