The true Democrat., 1854-07-05
The Mandauus.

The Mandamus.
 We this week publish the proceedings of the Pu]aski circuit court in the case of Elias N. Conway, as Governor of the State vs c. C. Danley as Auditor.
 Itappearsthat on the 18th of September, 1853, the Governor addressed letter to the Auditor requesting him to prepare the quarterly reports of the condition of the State treasury required of him by law. To this letter the Auditor deigned no reply. On the 3Oth Jannary fol- lowing, more than four months after, another letter was addressed by the Governor to the auditor, again requesting and demand ing that these reports be prepared and furnished to the executive office. To this letterstill there was no reply from the Au- dtor. He passed it by in silence-treated with contempt the application of the Governor, to which common courtesy, at least, if not sacred regard for the law, would have prompted re- spectful reply. But nether the law, which plainly marks out his duties, nor the constitu- tion which empowers the Governor to require ofany executive officer any information in his off, flee, nor common respect for the chief magis- trate of the State, seems to have had any in- luence with the Auditor.
 The key of the auditors office being thus un- tremendously turned against him, the Govern or was constrained to have recourse to the courts Accordingly. at his request, Messrs. Curran & Gallagher petitoned the circuit court for peremtory mandamus to compel the aud itor to comply with his duty and furnish the reports. The petition, it will be seen by refer ence to the proceedings, was granted, and since the issuing of the mandamus, we understand portion of the reports have been furnished to the executive.
 ! This case is unexampled in the history of Arkansas-ac case where the requirements of the law and the constitution, which the Auditor is sworn to support, are so plain and palable. h. deed the auditor admits that his own con. struction of the law required him to furnish the reports, though he chose to follow what he is pleased to term 'the custom of the office" in violation of 1t.
 The public we apprehend will not regard this piece of refractory conduct with very favorable eye Indeed 1t must be held as utterly inex- cusable by the best friends of the auditor.- The expense the State has been subjected to by the suit, and the delay in obtaining the infor- nation desired, are minor matters when con- trasted with the principles sought to be estab- ed by the conduct of the auditor. It deserves | IL II. oe xlax 1 lie.
 ! But the circumstances, under which the pre- paration of the reports were refused, show the conduct of the auditor in a still more unfavo- rahle light. It will be remembered that at the date of the Governors first letter calling for these reports of the condition of the State trea- sury, he was most bitterly assailed by the Au- ditor's newspaper for not convening the Legis- lature. More unmitigated abuse was never heaped upon the head of any man. Unde these circumstances the Governor called upon the Auditor for these reports which the law and the constitution both made it his duty to fur nish. These reports of the treasury he wanted, in an authentic form, to lay before the public for the purpose of vindicating himself and showing how ruinous would be the act convok- ing an extra session. This information the Au- ditor refused to give, but still kept up, through his paper his atta cks upon the Governor. By this refusal, he had only disobeyed the plain mandates of the law, but exhibited a great want of magnanimity and generosity. There are but few men who would assail another and then deny him the opportunity and means of making defense.
 We think the malfeasance of the Auditor has now reached its climax. He not only ne- gects his duty to take pleasure excursions, and to edit his paper etc., but in the administration of his office he has declared his independence against the constitution, and set up for himself a higher law''-his own arbitrary will