Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1895-12-27
WHAT OF THECAPITOL
THE DECISION OF TIE SUPREME
COURT FAVORABLE.
Rsasts of the Argument For and
Against thc Resolution Of the
CiAiOn Court "a Unit.

DAMN VI thc ifS uhtht FOE ana
Against ihc Resolution Of the
COmmi>>iOn Points ut thr De.
cision Court mtnit.
The ease OF the State on the rela-
ton Of the Attorney General vs.. the
State Capitol Commission, respondent,
was argued in the Supreme Court
Monday.
The brief of Harold Preston who ap-
pearcd i'll support of the injunction
against issue of warrants in advance of
construction. maintains that the plan
adopted 10y the commission to raise
funds for building purposes by issuing
warrants and selling the same in ad-
vance of actual building operations
was unlawful, because neither the
Commission nor the Auditor, acting
in unison, has authority to borrow
money for any purpose; that the
means employed by the commission
in the performance of its duty are meas
ured 10y the acts creating the commits
sion read i'll connection with the other
general laws, from which the proposed
plan is departure; that it would be
breach of duty for the Auditor to issue
warrants except upon vouchers show
ing the amount of the labor already
performed or material furnished; that
it would be breach of duty on the
part of the Auditor to sell warrants
issued upon any State fund or for the
commission to sell warrants upon the
State Capitol fund; that it would be a
breach of duty for the Auditor to allow
vouchers for work, except by the issu-
ance OF warrants upon the building
fund; that it would be breach of
duty for the Treasurer to pay funds re-
ceived from the sale of the proposed
warrants upon the proposed certifi-
Gates, because there has never been an
appropriation by the Legislature of
fund for that purpose, and the Treas
urer is forbidden to disburse public
moneys in any way except in the re-
demption of warrants heretofore is
sued; that the proposed plan, if other.
wise legal, cOntemplates violation of
the constitutional provision forbidding
the disbursement of moneys from any
fund after lapse of two years from
May following that date of the APP
preparation.
Argument Of the respondent was
pursued upon the following PROPOSE
tons: The proposed exchange of
warrants for cash is in conformity
with practice long prevailing in the
fiscal history of this State; the pro-
posed exchange is within the natural
meaning of the words. "Shall be paid
for in warrants on said capitol build
ing fund.-; that if the proposed ex-
change is not within the literal m can
ing Of the words Of the statute it is
within its meaning when literally
construed to give effect to the pur-
poses of the Legislature; that the ne
cessary implication of the acts of 1893
and 1895, when construed together. is
that the proposed exchange is the ap.
propriate method of giving effect to
the act; that the power to make this
exchange being necessary to the exc
cution of the power conferred on the
commission, the authority to exercise
such power is conferred; that section
IA, chapter 1873, of the laws of 1893,
does not directly or by necessary i'm
plication forbid such exchange; that
the act of March 20, 1895, forbidding
the Auditor to issue warrants, except
upon duly certified vouchers, does not
forbid the proposed exchange; that
the act Of 1893, providing for the erec-
ton of the capitol, and the amenda-
tory act of 1895 are special acts, and
therefore the act of March 20, 1895,
should not apply to them, unless the
intention that it should be applicable
to them clearly appears; that the
State Treasurer has the custody of the
money received in exchange for the
warrants since they are moneys OF
the State not expressly required by
law to be kept by some other person."
Upon these lines, able arguments
were made by Herold Preston, on be-
half of the relator, and James A.
Haight. for the respondent.
4hO OOuit ttbOA buC uldbLSE
advisement, and Thursday morning
filed their decision. which ia endorsed
by the whole number of Judges. 1t
atfirms the pro tornsa decision of
Judge Reed in refusing to issue an in
junction restraining the capitol COM
mission from issuing the capitol war
rants in pursuance with their resolu-
ton. The decision is quite volumi-
nous, covering 10 pages of type-writ-
ten legal cap. The question consid-
cred is as to the issue of warrants on
the capitol fund at once in sufficient
amount to complete the building.
The chief objection was based upon
the assumption that "the borrowing
of money" was the essence of the plan
proposed.
The court does not agree with this
contention OF the relator, The opin-
ion cites the provision Of the enabling
act granting $4,000 acres OF land to
the State for the purpose of erecting
public buildings at the State capitol,
and the provisions OF the acts of 1893
and 1895 of the State legislature Great.
ing the board of Capitol Commits
sioneIs and defining their duties, and
the manner OF their procedure. ave
must presume" says the court, "that
the legislature by the acts so passed
intended to secure the building and
completion of capitol building from
the proceeds of sales of the lands so
granted by Congress, without resort to
other funds. We are also bound to
presume that the Commission which
it authorized therein is in good faith
endeavoring to effectuate the object
and purpose of the Legislature. We
think reference to the acts of 1893
and 1895 is sufficient to indicate that
the object OF the law was to secure the
erection at the State capital of suit
able State building out of the lands
granted for that purpose by the general
government, without burdening the
treasury of the State, and that the
policy OF the law was to intrust to the
Commission discretionary powers to
determine, subject only to the limita-