Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

302 Ill. 111

Peabody v. Russel

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided February 22, 1922

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1922-02-22

<p>1. Constitutional law — constitution requires legislative appropriations to specify purpose and amount. Section 16 of article 5 of the constitution, as amended in 1884, clearly indicates that appropriations by the General Assembly shall specify both the object and purpose of the appropriation as well as the amount.</p> <p>2. Same — appropriation of "reserve fund” for departments of State government in 1921 is unconstitutional. The appropriation in 1921 of $500,000 to the Department of Finance “for reserve,” to be apportioned among the executive, judicial and military departments of the State government by the director of finance, with the written approval of the Governor, violates section 16 of article 5 of the constitution, as said .appropriation is not a distinct items but is a sum for general distribution, to be apportioned into items among a number of possible unspecified objects.</p> <p>3. Same — power to specify object of appropriation cannot be delegated. Section 16 of article 5 of the constitution requires the legislature to specify the purpose and amount of appropriations, and the legislature cannot, in an appropriation act, delegate to an administrative officer the specification of the objects and purposes and the determination of distinct items from a sum appropriated for general distribution.</p> <p>4. Same — when legislative interpretation of constitutional provision should not be followed. Legislative interpretation of a constitutional provision, as shown in statutes passed at different times, is entitled to no weight where there is no doubt that the proper construction of such provision is contrary to such interpretation.</p> <p>5. Same — courts cannot refuse to enforce constitutional provisions because they are impracticable. The fact that the provisions of the constitution concerning appropriations may require them to be too definite and specific to make the conduct of the State government practical and efficient does not authorize the courts to change the provisions or to refuse to enforce them.</p>

Relies on People ex rel. Mooneyham v. Cairo, Vincennes & Chicago Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decree affirmed · Decided 1922-02-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1960

9 state decisions

4019221930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Stone,

¶1also dissenting:

¶2I concur in the above dissent. A fund such as is here appropriated cannot be made available for any of the purposes for which specific appropriations have been made. To sanction such use would be, in effect, to increase the appropriations made for the purposes specified. It is impossible, however, to foresee and provide for all emergencies which may arise in the discharge of the functions of State government, just as such contingencies cannot be foreseen in the administration of the government of municipalities. There appears to be no good reason for a different rule as applied to the wider functions of the State. It was clearly held in People v. Cairo, Vincennes and Chicago Railway Co. 247 Ill. 360, which holding has been approved in later cases, that such appropriations may be made for the reason that “it is practically impossible jo always provide in advance for incidental expenses that will arise during the year.” There appears to have been no objection to the amount appropriated in this case. The reason for approving such an appropriation in the case of a municipality applies with equal if not greater force in the case of the State.

/302/ill/111 · .json · Public domain