The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1886-03-05

.. What contracts have been made
during the year 1884 and 1885, by the
Superintendent Of the Penitentiary with
said Lcssees, and under what authority
Of law.
3. What WORK has been done under
such contracts, and whether said con
tracts we're for rqpairs or improvements.
There are ten whereases in the pre-
amble stating the reasons and intent Of
the Instructions to the Committee, and
every one Of them asserts want Of statu.
tory power in the Superintendent, with
Or without the approval Of the Governor,
to make contracts with the Lessees for
imEr0rmais; and this alleged lack Of
power in the Superintendent to contract,
forms The pilh and marrow Of the pro
ceedings under which the Committee
made the report
What response did the Committee
make 10 the ten.times uhereased pre-.
amble? Senator Boone points out The
following, which we give in the exact
style IN which IL Is printed in the Com
mittee's report:
The Committee find that The Legisla
ture Of 1884 passed IAN Act e. amend
An Ac, entitled AN Act defining the
duties Of the Superintendent Of the
Penitenliary Of the State Of Misss-
sippi, approved March oh, 1882, and
section 7 Of said Act is az follows:
SEo 7, Bsh further eaacted, That in case
Of 90 accident to the PcHieHttarg btdidings
o. any Hcotssary repairs or improvement &c
fpaily needed, the Superintendent Of The
Penlentary may contract for sach rspoirs,
with the approtdi of the Governor, Upon
the presentation Of an itemized account Of
such expenditure, approved by the Cow
ernor, to the Auditor Of Public Accounts,
IL shall be his duty TO draw bis pay war
rant upon the Treasurer for The same. which
shall be paid our OF the funds derived from
the ease Of the Penitentiary.
Which is the only law your Commit
tee has been able to find that in any
way authorized the Superintendent,
with the approval Of the Governor" to
contract for necessary repairs and inn
provements actually needed"
Considering the serious nature of the
charge that the Superintendent bad no
power under any circumstances, to con.
tract with the Lesseess for improvements,
and the fact that the charge formed the
basis Of the lengthy preamble declaring
the reason and intent Of the special in.
attractions given the Committee, we
think nov that the response Of the Com
mitlee well warranted he con.
clnsion that they were of the
same opinion as the author Of the
to wit: that the Act Of March
10, SS4, authorize the Superintendent
to contract for repairs, and does not
authorize any contracts to be made for
y This Is net the language
Of the Committee, we admit, but II is
what we believed to be the opinion Of
the Committee, expressed In the Ian.
guage OF the author Of the preamble.
This preamble, grayely censuring the
Governor and the Superintendent Of the
Penitentiary, II Is now admitted by the
was founded on an erroneous
of the law. Endorsed by the
Senate on its presentation to that body,
il has been telegraphed far and wide aud
been commented on with more or less
severity by many Of the newspapers Of
this State, and, perhaps, elsewhere. 1t
is impossible that the Senator's could
have had accurate knowledge of its
contents when 1t was adopted, and yet
il was adopted by large majority.
II announced construction of Ger.
tain statutory language, which could
not be maintained in any reputable
court of the land, and yet some of the
best lawyers in the State voted for it
without hesitation
The practice Of prefacing laws and
resolutions with preamblos is not a
good one, and should not be INDUCED
in except where preambles are indispen-
SADLY necessary but to adopt a pre-
amble inculpating acitizen of the State,
based on a mistaken view of the law or
the facts Of case, is wholly indefensi.
Bile.
We hope that the Legislature will
take counsel of the example we have
given.