Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-12
CAN TIE STATE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
IT'S Own WRONG?

persons to whom sums of money were paid
undsr the Drainage Act Il is said that
he considers it his duty to institute these
remarkable, and as we trust unprecedented,
proceedings. The position taken by the
Attorney General was thus stated in our
local columns yesterday: elf money is
"paid out Of the State Treasury under
law Of the State it is properly paid, but
"if under an Act of the Legislature which
twas in contravention Of the Constitution,
then it was not paid out By reason of
law, and, the payment being Illegal, it
should be recovered" We are compelled
to express the opinion that this view is
shallow and fallacious, and this we shall
endeavor to demonstrate. The question
here seems really to be whether the State
can take advantage OF its own wrong. 1t
is familiar legal maxim that an indi-
vidual cannot do this, and what is
prohibited to the units which compose
the State cannot equitably be permitted
to those units acting in corporate
capacity. Nor is there any reason for
doubt as to the proposition that the wrong
here is the States. The responsibility for
the defects of the Drainage Act rests
directly upon the Legislature, which is
coordinate branch of the Government.
The intention of the Legislature was IN
mistakable. 1t meant to enact valid and
effective law, and it believed that it had
done So So believing it invited the con-
fdence of the public by fortifying this de.
fective statute with all the solemnities
which surrcuad the gr;y st acts of the
State. 1t put its imprimatur on the law,
and in its capacity as branch of the
Government assured everybody that they
could 90 on and act under this law without
doubt or hesitation. Thus far alone the
State has been concerned in the matter.
Whatever blunder or wrong has been COM
mitted the State has made itself accounta.
bic for. How then can the State, acting
through another part of its machinery,
attempt to shift the responsibility upon
the innocent parties who did work for the
State under this law, and who have re-
ceived no more than their honest compen-
sation for that work
To what an intolerable condition of
things does the Attorney. Generals view
conduct US. Under that Interpretation of
Al. - .A;o.- e A. Al,uoo Lro,obo, &c IL.
Government it becomes possible to convert
the State into swindling machine. He
tells us that the Legislature may pass IN
constitutional laws that under these laws
the people may expend labor for the State
and that after they have been paid for their
work the Supreme Court can come in and,
by declaring the law unconstitutional, COM
pei these unfortunates to pay back the
money they have received in exchange for
their labor. This is a revolving position,
but it seems to us that even on his own
showing the Attorney General has omitted
one consideration. For if the State can
recover all 1t has paid out under laws de-
clared unconstitutional, it surely must be
obliged to return the valuable considera-
tons for which it paid out those moneys.
The proposition that the State is to recover
its money, but that the men who did the
workfor which the money was paid are to be
robbed alike OF the products of their labor
and their wages, is really monstrous. We
are not called upon to consider what diff,
culties might lie in the way of the fulfill
ment of this demand. We have only tc
point cut the existence of an equitable
claim at this point.
The hypothesis of the Acknowledgement,
that because the Drainage Act has tech
nically never possessed validity, therefore
nothing done under it can stand, is more
over not tenabIe The contracts made
under the Act were as. well fortified as
contracts can be. There can be no doubt
that the State had right to operate
under the Drainage Act as long as its con.
stitutionality was not called in question
for until the Supreme Court passes upon
statute, the presumption must be in favos
of its validity, and this presumption is
one of the regular and indeed unavoidable
assumptions OF the State Government. For
il it were held necessary to obtain the
decision Of the Supreme Court upon the
validity Of every statute which involves
the expenditure Of money under contract
by the State, it would clearly be impog-
sible to carry on the Government, and
public enterprises of great pith and
moment would be continually baked and
paralyzed by the cumbersome nature of
the machinery, while the Legislature
would sink into contempt through the
obvious uncertainty of its acts. For all
practical purposes it is plain that the State
guaranteed the fnality of every proceeding
taken under the Drainage Act This
fuality is a necessary implication of all
legislative action involving money con-
tracts, since otherwise the State wauld be
in the odious position of laying traps for
it's own citizens.
1t must be taken for granted that when
the State undertakes to pay certain sum
of money for the performance of certain
specified work, il will stand to its prom
iss at least as straitly as an individual is
expected to. 1t is unheard of that pri
vate citizen should attempt to wriggle out
of his ius' obligations by taking advantage
OF technical defects in the contract, for
which defects he alone was responsible.
Yet this is what Mr.. Attorney. General
proposes to do on behalf of the State. His
proposition is not sound. Il is neither
good law nor good policy. We do not be-
lieve it possible for him to recover any of
the moneys for which he contemplates the
institution Of suits we are sure that if he
should recover his victims would have an
incontrovertible claim for damages against
the State; and we are perfectly certain
that the establishment OF Mr.. Attorney
Generals principle as here set forth would
result in a great deal of mischief to the
T., abo.L - ,-o,IJ ! =. -.