cerning the employees of each house and its expenses, is paramount to the independent action of each house, without the concurrence of the other.
States—legislative appropriation must exist to warrant disbursement by State Auditor in payment of expenses of each house of the Legislature.
2. Pursuant to constitutional requirements, there must exist a legislative appropriation to warrant disbursement by the State Auditor in payment of the expenses of each house.
States—legislative enactment may prescribe circumstances under which legislative appropriation may be disbursed.
3. A legislative enactment may prescribe the circumstances under which a legislative appropriation may be disbursed.
Statutes—no legislative appropriation or authority for issuance of warrants to employees of investigating committee when expenses authorized by House alone.
4. In an action to compel the State Auditor to issue warrants to employees of a special House investigating committee, whose appointment and whose expenses have been authorized by the independent action of the House alone, it is held, under the provisions of § 42, Comp. Laws 1913, and Chap. 5, Laws Sp. Sess. 1919, that there exists neither legislative appropriation nor legislative authority for the issuance of warrants to such employees.
Opinion filed June 3, 1921. Rehearing denied July 6, 1921.
Action of mandamus in District Court, Nuessle, J.
From an order sustaining a motion to quash the petition, the petitioners have appealed.
Affirmed.
Cameron & Wattam, for appellant.
“There is no doubt in the power of either branch of Congress or legislature to appoint a committee of investigation without concurrence of the other branch, to act during the session.” Re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661; 41 L. Ed. 1154; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204; Ex Parte Dalton, 44 Ohio State, 142.
This Court has said: “The contemporaneous construction placed thereon (referring to a statute under consideration) by the various administrative officers and boards is entitled to great weight and the ac-
