Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1852-12-09
INDIANA STATE SENTINEL,
Important DECISION.
ELLIS & sPANN ., THE STATE Ct .


sssenees they alleged they had sustained BY reason Of
the printing Of the late Constitutional Convention hay
ing been withheld from them.
The bill charged that on the Sd day OF January, looo
Jacob p Chapman was elected State Printer to serve
for three years after the LIST day Of August 1880
that he gave bond the 9th day Of January 1890 as
required BY law that the Sd day of May, 1850, Ellis
& Spann purchased from Chapman the right TO do the
Public Printing and receive the pay therefor, for which
they paid him considerable Of money that on the
18th day Of May, 1850, Chapman made to them pow.
ez Of attorney receive the pay for said Printing and
received from them bond conditioned for its faithful
execution that the Convention amend the Constitu
ton Of the assembled at Indianapolis on the 9TH
day of October, 1880 and adjourned finally on the 10Th
day Of February, 1851 and during Its session. ordered
and procured Austin H. Brown execute printing, con-
ssting Of the Journal and debates Of SAID Convention,
and other matters costing in all at legal prices the sum
Of 10 dollars and 80 cents and the net profit on
which amounted 81 $40 g. being the sum claimed in
this suit by Ellis Spann their measure oil damages
The bill further alleged the readiness OF Chapman and
Of Ellis & Spann to do said printing and notice TO the
Convention Of the fact The bill forth the act oil the
legislature of the 9Th Of February 1851, authorizing
the Treasurer of State pay Brown for said printing
out Of the State treasury &c. but providing that said
payment should not "operate against the claim OF Jacob
p Chapman the State Printer, his assignee or as
sgnees if any he they have, against the State The
ID section OF said act enacts: "That Erastus W. Ellis
and John S. SPann the assignees Of jacob Chapman
the State Printer Of the State OF Indiana be and they
are hereby authorized to bring suit against the State Of
Indiana in the Marion Circuit Court, IN accordance
with the provisions Of chapter 40 OF the general laws OF
1850, page &C. for such damages If any, as they may
have sustained in consequence Of the printing OF the
Constitutional Convention being withheld from them
Chapman was made defendant and answered con-
Tossing the bill.
The State answered. mainly conessng the facts Of the
bill but denying the right Of the plaintiffs to damages
upon the facts.
The court below decreed gainst the plaintiffs. The
counsel for the plaintiffs contend that this decree should
be reversed and this suit sustained
Because the State Printer is officer, and the
business function Of the State Printer is not Office,
but rather engagement with the State Tor the per-
Torrance OF service, which engagement IS legally as
signabe. Or,
2 II the State Printer be an officer and his duties be
generally assignabe, still the State has recognized
and sanctioned the assignment in the present by
the act authorizing this suit.
g. That the printing done BY Brown for the Constita-
tonal Convention embraced in the contract between
the State Printer and the legislature that elected him.
1t was competent for the legislature TO make the
State Printer officer and think they have done
in this State. Art Of chap. of the r. s., p 100,
OF the officers elected by the General Assem-
bly,, and the tenure Of their Offices" specifies,
Il. The Secretary Of State.
''2. The Treasurer OF State.
80. The Auditor of State.
"a President Judges Of the Circuit Courts.
u.s. Prosecuting Attorneys.
&C. The State Librarian and State Printer"
Section 81 enacs that the State Printer shall hold
his Office for the Of three years. and until bis
eessor is chosen and qualified and section II Of the
same chapter provides that Every person chosen or
appointed to any Office of trus profit under the
thory Of this State is required before entering the
duties Of said office, to take OATH" &C. The State
Printer is also required to give bond FOR the faithful
Torrance of his duties. The law then, has made the
right do the State printing, and take the compensa
ton therefor, Office and it is Of profit and
That is Of profit the institution Of this suit su
GENTLY evidences II is also OF The printing
for the term for which the State Printer is elected
amounts TO a large sum OF money and creates the
eessty for large amount of material. The State
therefore, honesty and judgment in the
trusted with il and she wants Promptness accuracy,
and neatness in the execution Of the work and il is
with eye to these things that the officer is chosen,
and his personal supeTntendanoe expected TO be given
secure them We may mention that in all the con-
tracts in this State letting portions Of the public works
to the several contractors, provision prohibiting the
sabettIng, WILL Of the contract inserted and
also making the failure Of the contractor to give
bis personal superintendance to the work ground Of
forfeiture Of the contract. The statute oil and Edw.
VI, Of England, against buying and selling offices,
would prohibit the sale Of that Of State Printer, and
principles Of public policy prohibit il here.
Nor do think the act authorizing this suit has
toned the assignment supposed have been made in this
The Legislature have not assumed to determine
any thing in the premises bnt have referred all the ques
tsns arising in the cause that Of the assignment among
them, to the Courts for decision.
Nor, 3dly, do think the printing done for the late
Constitutional Convention embraced in any con-
tract, express or implied, between Mr.. Chapman as
State Printer and the Legislature that elected him.
We do not to admit deny that his election
sttuted contract for any amount Of printing See
Gilbert y. The Board Of Commissioners, s<c Backf.
81 and Kent's Com. 6 Ed note page 454 At all
events could be implied The part OF the
Legislature by his election further than that he should
execute the printing authorized by Legislature acting
under the Constitution was that which elect
ed him. The Legislature did guarantee against a
change Of government and had the Convention abro-
gated the Office Of State Printer and provided that the
public printing should thereafter be let the low
bidder the then incumbent Of that place would have
shared the fate Of the other officers whose were
shortened or Offices abolished altogether.
And by public printing, we remark, we mean such as
directly ordered by the Legislature, performed for
the agents Of the Government authorized procure
TO be done The printing in question executed by Brown
was not authorized by Legislature acting under the
old Constitution, nor by any Legislature, We have
carefully looked the Of 1850 O.. Of 1850 D. 29)
providing for the Convention and payment OF
certain expenses which il might incur and there is
where sentence said by which the officers under
the old Constitution could be justified n paying for said
printing, by which said Convention could order said
printing At the expense OF the State II not there
lore either authorized by the Legislature directly
procured by her authorized agent.
We are aware that difference Of opinion exists -
the powers OF the late Constitutional Convention By
some it is regarded having been mere creature OF
the Legislature Of the old organization called to per.
form specific duty, viz: the amending and reforming
the old Constitution. BY others il is regarded
ing bees body out or independent Of, and over and
above the old political organization and in this latter
light, we believe, IL regarded ITSELF But Il is inmate
rial TO the decision Of the before in which OF
these lights it is viewed. II il the agent Of
the old government for efeong its reformation then il
was limited in its powers by the letter Of agencythe
statue-under which il assembled, and that did not
authorize It to procure from any source the printing
controversy. If IL was body independent OF the old
organization then the former government had nothing
do with its printing bills and they were be provided
for by a subsequent Legislature.
We think the printing 10 relation to which this suit
was instituted was procured by the Convention on tie
own responsibility and that the subsequent payment for
Thy Legislature under the old Constitution a vol.
untary obligatory act and that the State was not
thereby subjected TO the payment Of damages 10 her