Dickinson v. Page
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendriclcs, Judge; The disapproval of the “Item No. 10 — For Postage and Express, $2,000,” was in compliance with the requirements of the State Constitution, .and prevented it from'becoming a valid appropriation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendriclcs, Judge; The disapproval of the “Item No. 10 — For Postage and Express, $2,000,” was in compliance with the requirements of the State Constitution, .and prevented it from'becoming a valid appropriation. The method of vetoing in toto the general bills referred to in section 15, article 6 of the Constitution differs entirely from the method of disapproving or vetoing an item or items of a bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, referred to in section 17 of the same article. The former .section relates to…
1Dissent
'Smith, J.
(dissenting). This case has been decided •upon a question which was not raised or discussed in the brief's. It was argued by counsel for appellant that the method of vetoing, in toto, the bills referred to in section 15, Article 6, of the Constitution is entirely 'distinct and different from the method of disapproving, or vetoing, an item or items of a bill making appropriations of money, referred to in section 17 of article 6. It was •contended that section 17 conferred the right of vetoing items of an appropriation bill, without defining how that right was to be exercised, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arkansas State Fair Ass'n v. HodgesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915