The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-12-30

1t will be seen from the above that neither
House possesses the power to elect or ap-
point printer, or any other officer or ap'
pointee not included within the list author
lied by the law providing for its organiza.
tion.
1t is further urged as an additional reason
why the Legislature, or the separate branch
es thereof, should disregard the contract
under consideration, and refuse to carry out
its obligations on behalf of the State, that
the same was unjustiy awarded by the
officer to whom the duty was assigned by
this point, the undersigned submit, that no
question has been referred to this committee
by the House, which, in their opinion, makes
it incumbent upon them to investigate into
either the Justice or injustice of such award.
In stating this conclusion, the undersigned
do not intend to carry the idea that the acts
of the State Auditor in this regard may
not be made the proper subjects of legisla-
tive investigation. But it is clear that
this cannot rightfully be done, unless such
officer has been formally and specifically
charged with corrupt conduct in the per-
fOrmance of his duties. 10 that case, the
proper proceeding would be in the nature
of an investigation preliminary to the i'm
parchment of such officer for malversation
in office. But even in that case, such in
vestigation, if it should establish the
fact of corrupt conduct, could not be
made the basis for an attempt on the
part of the Legislature. or of either branch
thereof, to annul such contract thus upiustly
made, or to disregard the obligations which
a. -.
long as even an unjust contract is in force,
and unannulled by competent authority,
its obligations are binding upon the parties
thereto, and upon the State the same as
upon an individual. And this authority to
annul contracts, it is submitted, does not
belong to the Legislature, or to either
branch thereof. This authority is vested by
the Constitution and the laws in the
judiciary of the State, and in that depart
ment of the government exclusively 1t
does not exist in the legislative department
in any complete or modified form. Its
exercise, or attempted exercise, would in
volve violation of the Constitution and
disregard of the laws, which are binding
upon members not only in respec! of their
duty as citizens, but also by the added obi
cations of their official oaths.
The undersigned would be fully justified
in declining to investigate the merits of the
award OF the printing contract, for the
reason that the subject has not been brought
to the attention Of this House by any of
the parties who claim to be injured by such
award. The parties who can thus claim to
be injured, if the award was wrongfully
made, are the several competing bidders for
the printing contract. No memorial,
petition, or claim, from any of the parties,
has been laid before the Committee, nor, to
the knowledge of the undersigned, has any
such memorial, petition, or claim been
presented for the consideration of the House.
That this has not been done, argues much,
in the opinion of the undersigned, for the
Intelligence of such competing parties, who
are doubtless aware that the Legislature is
not made by the Constitution and laws
competent tribunal for the investigation and
decision of judicial questions,
While, however, the undersigned do not
consider that an investigation of the facts
connected with the award of the contract
under consideration, was imposed upon
them by any action OF the House,
they yet deem it proper to state, that
such examination as they have been
able to give has failed to reveal any facts
which throw any suspicion either upon
the integrity of the Auditor or upon the
Justice of his award. This officer was in
vested with large discretion in the per-
Torrance of the duties imposed upon him by
the contract law of 1858, and we have
learned no facts which induce US to believe
that he exercised such discretion either I'm.
justly or unwisely. The law obliged him to
take into account, in determining upon the
various bids offered, the place where the work
bid for would be performed the facilities
possessed by the various bidders for the
execution thereof; and in regard to the
advertising, the circulation of the various
papers which were offered as mediums for
the publication of the laws and other ad-
vertisements. The law did not confne the
award to the Loavest bidder but gave the
Auditor discretion to consult the public in
terest, by awarding the contract to the
forrest and best bidder The law gave
further discretion in regard to the quantity
which should be included in the contract or
contracts to be awarded, by authorizing
uch award to be In ide either for the aUtole
of the printing, binding, and advertising, or
Tor day part thereof.
Under these provisions of the law how
can 1t be seriously contended that the Audi
tor was clothed with ministerial power only
in his relation to it? MIR. Bowler in his
Law Dictionary, gives US the following def.
milton of a ministerial Office, to wit: !" The
ministerial offices are those which give the
officer no power to judge Of the matter to be
done, and require him to obey the mandate
of a superior" Compare this definition of
ministerial offices with the duties devolved
upon the Auditor by the statute, in making
this award, and how is it possible to regard
him as a ministerial officer in that behalf ?
1t cannot be doubted that he was required
to take the questions into account which we
have enumerated, else why did the statute
require sworn statements in regard to the
place where the work was to be done, and
the facilities for doing it, and the circulation
of the paper in which the laws and adver-
tisements were to be published?
There were only two bids received cover
ing all the items to be contracted for, and
these were so made as to render it necessary
TO accept Or reject them in Ohole. Mr..
Goodrichs bid was one of them; and much
the lowest of the two; and no combination