Weekly Minnesotian and times., 1859-12-31


ng into distinct classes; and the majority of
your committee can arrive at no other con-
clusion than that the law fully contemplated
that the Auditor should award the contracts
to the lowest responsible bidder for each sep
crate class of work. Otherwise, the law
would be worse than failure for the reason
that at the time of the passage of the act, and
up to the present time there was and is but
one printing establishment in the State, pre-
pared to execute all the classes indicated by
the Auditor in his published notice, and con-
one Office could monOpolze the en-
tire work at such prices as the contractor
might see proper to dictate. The law says
in express terms that the Auditor shall award
"the said contract or contracts for said print
" ing binding, and advertising to the lowest
land best bidder or bidders for the whole or
" any portion" of said work, clearly indica-
ting to the minds of majority of your COM
mittee that the ruling of the Auditor that be-
cause the protestant was the only person who
bid on all of the nine items, and consequent
ly was the lowest bidder for the aohOle of the
work, that therefore he was entitled to the
contract for the whole of the nine items, &c.
was construction of the law unwarranted
either by thelan9uage or spirit of the law, by
common sense, or by any principle of justice
or fair dealing.
From the beginning to the end of Section
One of the Act, the idea is made prominent,
that a classification shall be made by the
Auditor, and that a portion may be let to one,
and portion to another bidder, as the one
may possess facilities over the other, to exc
cute the particular portion for which he bid
at a less rate and to better advantage than
the Other-as the act provides the Auditor
shall "award the said contract or contracts,
for said printing, binding and advertising to
the lowest and best bidder or bidders for the
whole, or any portion of said printing, binding
or advertising" &c.
The Auditor is ministerial officer, and as
such, must be governed in the letting of the
contract by the letter of the law He has no
judicial power or discretion. He must obey
the law to the letter, and the moment he tran
sends the power conferred upon him by the
law, or departs from its directions, his acts
are nullity. Then, has he in the letting of
the Contracts for the printing, binding and
advertising to Earle S. Goodrich, the protes-
tant, exceeded his just powers, or departed
from the directions given to him by the Act
If he has, then his act or acts are merely
void, to say nothing of the fraudulent combi-
nation formed by the protestant and others
to defeat the intention of the law, by present
ing fair competition for the work to be let
The evidence before your committee salts
fes majority of it, in but four of the items,
as classified by the Auditor, viz: the print
ing of the blanks for the State Officers, the
binding and the printing in foreign languages,
and the printing of the Supreme Court Re-
ports, was the protestant the lowest and best
bidder; that in each and every one of the
other classes, various bidders bid from ten to
over one hundred per cent lower than he
Yet, Notwithstanding the positive terms of
the law, that the work shall be awdrded to
the loacest and best bidder for the whole, or
any portion of the same, the whole was con-
tracted by the Auditor to the protestant, at
an increased cost to the State, and according
to the Auditors low estimate OF the amount
required, of seven thousand dollars.
The majority of your committee, therefore,
is of the opinion that the contract entered into
with the protestant is void and should be so
treated by this body.
The question, that one Legislature cannot
abridge or restrict the rights or prerogatives
of its successors, is so well settled, and has
been so long acquiesced in, that your COM
mittee does not think it necessary to recur to
authorities to sustain the position. All acts
of any Legislature, therefore, which attempt
to interfere with the rights or prerogatives of
a succeeding Legislature, must be null and
void, at least so far as they encroach on those
rights or prerOgatives.
The Act Of March 10, 1858, at least so far
as it provides for the printing, binding and
advertising of the Senate and House of Rep
resentatives, is, in the opinion of majority
of the committee, an encrOachment upon the
rights and prerogatives of the present and fu-
ture Legislatures, and to that extent, indefen-
sive and void.
The printing of the laws and journals of the
Legislature is one of the necessary incidents
to that body, and just as essential to the OBJ
jects and purposes of its creation as any other
of its prerogatives, and as much under its
control as the keeping of its daily journal.
The power to make laws, implies and car
res with it the power to make known and
preserve them. This, therefore, becomes a
necessary power, and one which cannot be re-
stricted or encroached upon.
There can be- no question of the position,
that the Legislature has the power, either to
direct how its acts and proceedings shall be
published, or to prohibit their publication al
together. If, then, it has the power to say how
it shall be done, or to say it shall not be done
at all, can it be possible that there en- be any
doubt as to its absolute and unqualified con-
troll over the whole subject? Certainly, in
the minds of the majority of the committee
there cannot be.
The Supreme Court in the case of Good
rich VS.. Moore, which involves the question
as to how far the printing of the debates, jour-
mails, &C., incident to the Constitutional Con-
vention, and which is a parallel case with the
one under consideration, hold the following
language, which is in accordance with the
views of a majority Of the committee, viz:
''There is no reason to suppose that at the
time of the passage of this act, the Legislature
had at all in view, the assembling of Con-
sttutional Convention, nor that they assumed
the right in any manner to control it's pro-
ceedings, or interfere with its legitimate func-
tons.
but even had the Legislature intended and
attempted to claim and executs the right of
providing printer for the Constitutional Con-
vention, it would have been an unauthorized
and unwarrantable interference with the rights
of that body. The admission of such right
in the Legislature, would place the Conven-
ton under its entire control, leaving it with
out authority even to elect or appoint it's own
officers, or adopt measures for the transaction
of its legitimate business. 1t would have less
power than town meeting and be incompetent
to perform the objects for which it convened.
1t would be absurd to suppose Constitution
al Convention has only such limited authori-
ty. 1t is the highest Legislative Assembly rec
ognized in law, invested with the right of
enacting or framing the supreme law of the
State. 1t must have plenary power for this,
and over all the incidents thereof
Then, being an incident, and essential to the
proper EXCISE of the legitimate powers of the
Legislature, it is one of the rights or preroga-
tivos of the body which cannot be interfered
with by any previous Legislature.
In addition to the evidence of fraud hereto
fore cited, the majority of the committee
would further state, that they called upon the
State Auditor, Hon. w. F. Dunbar, and ex-
amined the proposal of Earle S. Goodrich, the
protestant now on file in the Auditors office
that the Auditor produced various papers
which he represented to be and which your
COmmittoa haliavad RI no tho ORIGINAL ,,ro,o