viously embraced in § 42, C. L. 1913. The following is a type of such appropriation (chap. 43, § 3, subdss. 57, Session Laws of 1915):
“Subdivision 57:
The Fifteenth Legislative Assembly.
For the payment of salaries and mileage of members, per diem of officers and employees, printing, and miscellaneous expenses and supplies, for the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly, the following sums:
Mileage and per diem of members...................57,000 00
Per diem officers and employees ........... 20,000 00
Printing ......... 30,000 00
Miscellaneous expenses and supplies...........5,000
Total $112,00000”
Substantially the same, differing as to amounts, will be found in subsequent session laws. See chap. 24, subdss. 54, Session Laws of 1917; chap. 16, subdss. 46, Session Laws 1919; chap. 5, § 25, Laws of Special Session 1919. From this it will be seen that the section which is made the basis of the decision in the majority opinion has practically been a dead letter since the inauguration in 1913 of the practice of passing a general appropriation bill (made applicable to the Legislature in 1915). In other words, § 35, R. C. 1905 (§ 42, C. L. 1913), has never served any purpose except as a standing appropriation, and it can scarcely continue to serve this purpose while specific appropriations are made covering the same items.
According to the majority opinion the relators are legislative employees, but yet it is held that, since they were assigned to work with an investigating committee, they can receive no compensation for their services because the committee expenditures have not been authorized by the Legislative Assembly, meaning the House and Senate combined. It is said that this conclusion is rendered necessary by the language of § 42, C. L. 1913, which appropriates money to pay “the expenses of investigating committees when authorized by the Legislative Assembly.” The construction adopted depends for its validity upon the answers to two questions: First, what restrictive force should be given to language contained in a standing appropriation after it has been in effect superseded by specific appropriations? and, second, what is meant by the expression “authorized by the Legislative Assembly”?
It is apparent that the majority opinion gives effect to this standing
