Ingram

Upon joint petition of appellant and respondent this cause was ordered to be heard in Bank for the determination of the single question whether or *116 not the act under consideration (“An act fixing a bounty on coyote scalps,” Stats, of 1891, p. 280) made appropriation for the payment of claims arising under it.

The opinion heretofore rendered (filed October 80, 1894) stands confirmed, and what is now added is to be construed with it.

The objections raised to the sufficiency of the act are: 1. That no appropriation at all is made by it; 2. That, if an appropriation is made, that appropriation is void for uncertainty in amount.

It is provided by article IV, section 22, of the constitution that “no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and upon warrants duly drawn thereon by the controller.” This inhibition is supplemented by subdivision 17 of section 433 of the Political Code: “No warrant must be drawn unless authorized by law, and upon an unexhausted, specific appropriation provided by law to meet the same. Every warrant must be drawn upon the fund out of which it is payable, and specify the services for which it is drawn,…