Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-02-17
STATE PRISON LABOR.

Hearing of the Application by the SUI
prelne Court for a Mandamus Against
Awarding the Contract to Seymour ,Sabin
& CO.-DeclsiOn to be Rendered This
Morning.
The judges of the supreme court, Chief
Justice Gilfllan, and Judges Berry and Cor
nell, sat in banc at 10 o'clock yesterday fore.
moo to hear the motion of respondents to
quash the proceedings for mandamus in the
case of Cyrus j. Thompson against the Still
water prison inspectors. The proceedings
arose from the allegations of fraud in the let
ting of the contract for convict labor, with
which the public are already familiar. Attor-
ney General Start appeared for the inspectors,
and Mr.. George L. Otis for the reiator, Mr..
G. j. Thompson.
The case was opened by Attorney General
Start for the prison inspectors, who maintained
that the proceedings were unauthorized for two
reasons; first, that there was not sufficient
ground for the writ, and second, that the court
had no Jurisdictions Counsel then read the
several contracts, the difference between which
gave rise to the disagreement and litigation.
In arguing the case the speaker said that the
relator showed no claim to compel mandamus;
if it be true that warden and inspectors have
no right to enter into contract without the
approval of the governor or auditor, then
there was an end of it; this was an attempt to
execute a contract which bound the State only;
counsel cited from Young's statutes, chapter
20, relating to the prison contracts; sections
rs and 49, regulating prisons; counsel claimed
that the only inconsistency between the stat
utes was that relating to the time of the con-
tract; where the office was ministerial the
officer was the proper one to exercise his
judgment and discretion, and not the courts.
The law didn't recognize that the contract be
let to the highest bidder; it might be let in
private to whom they considered the highest
and best bidder; the inspectors and wardens
must exercise their judgment as to what was
the highest and best price for the good of the
State; it was not mandatory upon the warden
and inspector to award the bill to the highest
bidder; party is not entitled to the extraor-
binary writ of mandamus unless he shows
that he has an adequate remedy at law. 1t
seems beyond question that the writ must be
denied; if the relatOr had any rights in court
it must be that he has valid contract; if he
had such rights he must have a contract, and
having the latter he had just remedy at law;
he could demand the right to the grounds
ON the 1st of April and if denied
he could sue for damages. If
he had no contract the courts could not in
terfere to allow him to galvanize and perfect a
contract. Counsel cited case in the 72nd
| New York, 1876, to sustain his proposition,
where in an almost similar case the court had
held that relator had no remedy at law. In
summing up, counsel maintained that to be
| valid the contract must be signed by the gov
ernor and auditor; that the court had no pow
er to coerce or compel an executive officer to
act; the inspector and warden were executive
officers of the State of Minnesota, and they
could not act so as to bind the State, and to
| violate this principle would be opening the
| door for long and grievous train of evils.
MR.. GEO. L. OTIS.
Mr.. George L. Otis followed in behalf Of
| the relator. Counsel first alluded to the
statutes relating to jails and prisons upor
which he said the proceedings were author
lied; while it was true they were mo-
limited, still if they made contract witt
relator they were bound to execute; TIM
power to lease the prison labor for nine
years, involved the power to contract for the
work; if, in this discretion they made vaii(
contract they were bound to execute it
counsel referred to the advertisement calling
for proposals; the property to be leased wa:
the shops, grounds, machinery, and ninet,
per cent. of the labor of the able bodied con
vlcts; in case bid was accepted and th
contractor failed to execute the award h
was subject to a forfeit of $4,000
he was also required to fur
nish heavy and valid bonds
under the stipulations of the proposal the re
lator, Cyrus J. Thompson, fully complied tt
carry out the provisions of the bid the in
spectors had accepted his bid and awarded hin
| the contract; in SO doing they had discharged
the duty devolved upon them by the law, ant
having so acted the contract was completed
and their duty done; they could not refuse t.
| complete the lease; this could be done only
whan the relator had failed to perform hi
duty Counsel referred to the absurd PROPOSE
ton of respondents, who claimed that the ma
chinery could not be removed from the shops
he showed that within nine years even TIN
not be known in the State; that the machinery
for making it and other farm
implements might be supplanted by
improved and better methods of work
| Counsel claimed that when the contract hat
been accepted the relator was entitled to thu
lease. When once executed the contract wal
subordinate to every provision for the main
tainance of discipline and conduct of TIT
prisoners. The relator had accepted all thu
provisions but one, which was unlawful, ant
had been thrust at him to prevent him from
accepting the contract. The inspectors hat
| no discretion to refuse to give the relator thu
contract.
1t was claimed by the attorney general thai
maldamus could not lie, for the reason that il
| must be approved by the governor and auditor
Counsel cited the revised statutes sustaining
his argument, and combatted the idea that tht
| inspectors could back out after once accepting
| and closing a bid. If they could exercise sc
| unjust process it would be impossible to
ever get contract.
The statue contemplate lease; this was q
lease of real estate for nine years and the State
| was as liable as would be the individual under
| similar circumstance. In response to ques-
| ton by the court Mr.. Otis claimed that the
protest could not be made part of the pro-
ceedings but simply that which had reference
! to the provisions of the written lease.
In reply Attorney General Strait maintained
that the qualification insisted upon by the in
spectors preventing the removal of the ma
chinery was within the scope and spirit of the
| advertisement and that the proposition Of the
relator was opposed to it. !1f the negotiations
stopped short of any of the requirements of the
contract this was the end of it; the approval
of the governor and auditor was of great i'm
portance and could not be repealed.
The noon hour having arrived court sd-
journed until $50 o'clock this morning.
THE COURTS.