The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-29
THE MINING BUREAU swIsDLE.
Jones Says 1t L. Not
Necessary for Him to Give an Opinion.

THE MINING BUREAU swINDLE.
Attorney-General Jones Says It L. Not
Necessary for Him to Give an Opinion.
OLYMPIA, July 2s-[special attorney Gen.
eral Jones makes the following reply TO the let
ter of State Auditor Reed, submitting, at the re-
quest of the mining bureau, the dispute a. to
the fund upon which certain warrants issued
upon vouchers of the mining bureau should be
drawn:
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE !
SPOKANE, July 81 1891
Hon. T. NJ. Reed, State Auditor, Olympia,
wash.-Dear Sir: en- in receipt of your favor
OF July Is enclosing transcript of the records
of the mining bureau Of the state and state
ment of that bureau in relation thereto, and re-
questing my official opinion relating to the mat
ter in controversy therein, pursuant to the pro-
visions OF section q, page o. laws lsS9-90 which
is as follows:
"If any person interested shall be dissatisfied
with the decision of the auditor on any claim,
account or credit, it shall be the duty of the
auditor at the request OF such person in writing,
setting forth the objections to refer the same TO
the attorney general"
The mining bureau, being dissatisfied with
your decision in the matter in controversy,
which will hereafter be more fully explained,
requests you in writing to refer the matter in
controversy to this office for an official opinion.
In order that what shall hereafter say may
be the better understood, q brief history of the
controversy will be necessary.
BY the act approved February %, 1890, page
249, session laws i8S9-90, the legislature of this
state created the mining bureau, and In section
''It shall be the duty of the mining bureau to
collect reliable statistical information concern
ing the production and reduction of all precious
and useful minerals of this state, and examine
the different processes of the treatment of ores
used in the state; to inquire into the merits of
other processes alleged or demonstrated by
practical experience elsewhere to be the most
successful"
The act also clearly contemplates that for the
purpose of acquiring such information, the
members of the mining bureau are authorized
to travel from place to place in the state at the
expense of the state, section of the act pro-
viding for the payment by the state Of the trav-
cling expenses of the ex-officio members of the
mining bureau.
Section also provides that they shall exam
ine audit and allow all bills which relate to ex-
penditures of moneys received by or appro-
priated for the purposes set forth in section 3,
and authorizes them to employ such clerical
assistance as may be necessary to carry out the
full intent of the act.
BY the act of March z, 1891, page 21S, the legis-
lature. under the head OF mining Bureau and
State Geologist" made appropriations as fol-
lows:
'For salary of state geologist, at $1,000 per
year, ~ AGO; for chemicals, at $3.50 per year. $500:
for contingent and travelling expenses, at 1000
per year, $1,000; for rent OF Office $500 per year.
81 200; for rent of cabinet and mining bureau,
$500; for travelling and incidental expenses,
5000; for making geological and neurological
survey OF the state and making and publishing
maps and reports of the same, $4,000
The last item above named was recently held
by the supreme court of this state to be invalid
for the reason that there was no law authorizing
the state geologist or the mining bureau to make
a geological survey OF the state.
Under the provisions of section 3, page 250
laws 1SS9-9Q, the mining bureau audited and al
lowed large number of claims, some of which
it is claimed were properly chargeable to the
several appropriations mode to the mining
bureau for travelling and incidental expenses,
and others were claimed to be properly allowed
by the mining bureau to be charged to the APP
preparation made for geological survey.
will call your attention to only two of these
claims. The first, evidenced by a voucher, num-
Der 6,S79, 10 a. follows:
TACOMA, April q, 1891
Invoices. 50
Fountain pen. 2 so
Duly certified to have been paid by George A.
Bethune. Audited and allowed by the mining
bureau as follows:
STATE OF WASHINGTON, :.
COUNTY OF THURsToN, sS'
May 5.-We, Charles E. Laughton and A. A.
Lindsey, of the state of Washington, do hereby
certify on honor that the merchandise herein
mentioned, for which payment 10 asked, has
actually been furnished, and that the within
bill is true and correct, to the best of our
CHAs E. LAueHroN, President.
A. A. LINDsLEY, Secretary,
Mining Bureau, State OF Washington.
The second claim, evidenced by a voucher,
No. G, 442, 10 as follows:
TACOMA, WASH, April %, 1891.
One l2x14 office tent. ....-.............$26 90
Poles and stakes Observation-Disclosures. 200
Certified to have been paid by II. E. Parrish,
assistant geOlogist.
1t is contended by the mining bureau that
the first of the claims above set forth was prop
erly chargeable to the general appropriation to
the mining bureau, which is conceded to be q
valid appropriation; that the second claim
above set forth was properly chargeable against
the appropriation for geological survey, which
has been held to be invalid
nf slain in 1u
form, both are approved by the mining bureau
In exactly the same manner. There is nothing
that am able 20 discover from the face of the
claims OF the vouchers that would indicate that
these claifns were audited or allowed by the
mining bureau under any other provision than
those found in section three, of the act of 1ss9
90, or that they were chargeable against any
other fund than the general appropriation for
incidental expenses of the mining bureau, I'M
less II be the addition to the name of II. Z.
Parrish, who signed the second voucher.
These vouchers were presented to the state
auditor and warrants drawn by him for both
claims, together with numerous other claims
the second claim above. which warrants were
drawn against the general appropriation for in
cidentai expenses Of the mining bureau.
Ii is now commended by the mining bureau
that the state auditor had no authority to draw
warrants against the appropriation for travelling
and incidental expenses on account of claims
such as the second above set FORTH and that
that appropriation cannot be exhausted by
drawing warrants upon 1t for claims chargsable
TO another fund.
This controversy, therefore, presents for nv
TO whether an act which has been fully per-
formed was done in legal manner.
No state officer is asking my advice for the
purpose of guiding and directing him in the
performance of any official duty nor does the
request for my opinion come from any person
"interested" who is dissatisfied with the action
OF the auditor.
The mining bureau, as such, cannot be inter-
ested within the meaning OF that section in the
decision OF the auditor; for notwithstanding
the unauthorized depletion of the appropriation
for ineidentals and travelling expenses. which
Will occur by reason of the drawing of these
warrants which are contended to be improper
charges against that fund, still the fund may
not be exhausted within the period for which
the appropriation was made, in which case the
mining bureau would be in no wise prejudiced,
even II the action of the state auditor was de-
termined to be unauthorized
am unable TO see at this time that any one ID
interested in the determining of this matter ex-
cept the state auditor, who is alone responsible
In case his action has been erroneous: nor can
my official opinion be of any service TO him. for
he has already tully performed the act upon his
own responsibility and at his own peril. My
opinion, IL should give one, would simply be
an opinion upon an abstract proposition of law,
concerning which no action is now pending by
or on the part OF any person whom am author
lied by law TO advise
The purpose OF the law In requiring this Office
10 advise the different state officers concerning
matters relatng 10 their official duties is mani
testify Tor the purpose of assisting them to pro-
coed correctly in the performance of their du-
ties, and not for the purpose of securing opln-
ions on merely mooted questions
For the foregoing reasons, am OF the opinion
that the controversy submitted TO me presents
no question which Is within my province To de-
termine. / therefore return all papers 20 YOU
without expressing an opinion on the questions
presented.
have the honor to be very respectfully yours.
VIC. JONES, Attorney General.
T.. q. n No.3~.