The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-27
THE LOOTERS FOILED.
Laughton's Mining Survey I'm
authorized by the State.
DECISION BY SUPREME COURT.
Legislature Didn't Intrust Appropria-
tion to the Bethune Ring.
The Mining Bureau Had No Business to
Assume the Direction OF the Survey.
and Treasurer Was Right in Refusing

OLYMPIA, June 26.-TSpecial. The su-
preme court this afternoon handed down
the earnestly iooked-for decision in the
mining bureau case in answer to the appil-
cation of H. E. Parrish, engineer of the
geological survey. for a writ of mandamus
to compel the state auditor to draw a war
rant upon the state treasurer in favor of
Parrish for the payment of voucher, cer-
titled to by the president and secretary of
the mining board, for $50, alleged TO be
due Parrish for services as assistant
state geologist for the month of
May, 1891. It appears from the
affidavit that the mining bureau at its
regular meeting, held April 8, at which a
majority of its members was present, di-
rected a geological survey of the state to
be made. and that in funherance of that
determination, at q su 9sequent meeting
held April %. the said TIining bureau, by
majority of its members, employed Par
rish to perform labor and services in the
field in assisting to make such survey at
compensation of $50 per month, payable
monthly; that in pursuance of said
employment the plaintiff per-
formed labor and services in the
field during the entire month of May. 1891; /;
that the mining bureau examined, audited,
and approved the voucher and sent it to
State Auditor 7. NJ. Reed, who refused to
draw warrant, having been so instructed
by Governor Ferry.
In its opinion the court shows that
while the act creating the mining bureau
clearly defines its powers, there was no
provision made by the legislature author
izing the bureau TO direct or superintend
the geological or mineral survey
of the state, or to audit or allow any claim
against the state incurred by the parties
engaged in the performance of such serv-
ice. 1t is simply authorized to collect GER
tain reliable statistical information speei-
fed IN the act, and to examine, audit and
allow all bills which relate to the ex-
pense of money received by or un-
der its provisions, being limited to 81 500.
Neither does the court think the powers
or duties of the mining bureau have been
IN any way enlarged or changed by any
provision contained in the general appro-
priation act. by which act the sum of $50
600 was appropriated 'sfor making a geo.
logical and mineralogical survey of the
state, and making and publishing maps
and reports of the same" But the
act is silent as -. the method or
agency whereby the same was to be ex-
pended. Had its provinces or duties been
defined in the general appropriation act,
the provision would have been nugatory,
as being in contravention to that portion
of the state constitution which declares
that no bills shall embrace more than one
subject, and that the same shall be ex-
pressed in the title. In conclusion the
court says:
ltwas no doubt the intention OF the legisia-
ture, when il made this liberal approximation
for the purpose OF ascertaining and thereby
assisting in the development OF the mineral re-
sources of the state, to further provide therefor.
and it is probable that il intended to impose
that duty and responsibility upon the
mining bureau But we find nowhere in
the law any express or even implied indication
OF that intention. Owing TO its importance and
probable effect upon the mining interests of this
state, We have carefully considered this case
and are unable 10 reach any other conclusion
than that the appropriation referred TO cannot
be disbursed, or warrants thereon legally drawn
without further legislation upon the subject
The writ is therefore denied.