The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1892-04-15
THE COUNTY, PRINTING.

TIE QUESTION SETTLED by THE sU-
PRESiE COuRT.-TuE OPISION OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL IVES SUSTAIN
ED--TIIE OLD BOARD CANNOT TIE
THE HANDS OF THE NEW BOARD.
The question as to whether "a board
of county commissioners can make a
contract sor the county printing which
Will be binding on the board, after it's
organization at the regular statutory
meeting in January for the ensuing
year, hiss been generally discussed dur
ing the last two years. and has given
rise to considerable litigation. The
matter WAS called to the attention of
Attorney General Ives last gear, and
he gave an opinion to the effect that
the board could not make a contract
for the county printing for the sue
ceeding year that would bind the board
after its organization at the January
meeting for the ensuing year.
In the face of this opinion, ia
several counties, the retiring
member Of the Lcard, with the assist
ance of the member of the board
who held over another year, at the last
meeting of the board for 1891, and
Immediately before the commencement
of the term Of the commissioner
elected last fall, and before the orgaui-
cation of the board for this year,
undertook to let The county printing
for the year 1892. Acting under the
opinion of Attorney General Ives the
boards ia the counties where this had
been attempted, immediately after
their organization, set aside the action
Of the old board and re-Iet the COLI
tract. Suits of different character to
test the question were at once COM
menced by several of the parties to
whom the printing had been let by the
old boards, among the number being
the suit of W. S. Hebron, Of the Kius-
leg Mercury, against the commissioners
of this county.
One of the suits was brought in the
supreme court 10y Alvah Sheldon
against the commissioners of Butler
county to obtain writ of n.audamus
to compel the commissioners to carry
out the contract made by the old
board. This case was argued at the
March term and was decided last
Saturday. The question was fully
passed on by the court and decided
adversely to the party claiming under
the contract with the old board. The
following is the syllabus of the opinion
prepared by Chief Justice Horton, and
is so plain that any person who can
1Aad can tell just what was decided:
The boards OF county commissioners Of
the several counties OF the state have ozcIu-
sive control Of the expenditures accruinE
either in the publication Of delinquent tax
lists, treas urers's notices. or other county
printing, and in pursuance OF this power,
have authority to designate the omcial news
papers of their respective counties, but such
designation cannot continue for a longer
period than one year. or so us 10 bind OF tie
the hands OF their successors in Office
ION the second Monday Of January after
each general election at which a commission
or has been elected the board Of county com
missiOners, as an orgHufzed body, is dissolved
and the Office Of chairman Is vacant, und be-
fore the commissioners can transact any
county business, other THAI to- elect chair
man, or hi a vacancy in the once Of com
missiousr,the board must be again organized
ana the hands OF such new board or OFgu MIA
ton, as TO the designation Of the ollCial news
paper of the county, are not tied by q prior
order OF the preceding board Of county com
a.