The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-27

law does not ahrogats a special one by
mere Implication,
Brown =. Commissioners. q Penn St,
81
State vs.. Judge. sc Louis probate court.
. Mo, 80.
Having already given IT'S attention 10
the particular subject. and provided for
Il. the legislature is reasonably presumed
not 10 intend 10 aIser that special provis-
SION BY subsequent general enactment.
unless that intentson II manifested n ex-
piicit language. Cine fact thar the gem
ersl act contains q clause repeating acts
Inconsistent with IL does not diminish the
force OF this rule of construction =
Enaiich on Interpretation OF Statutes.
section 70, and authorities there cited.
In aecordans with this general rule We
think u is very clear that the provisions
OF the act Of March -. L2s5. claws of ISg5.
page 1917 do not apply ID the case The
resolution IN question scc0rds with the
spirit Of section Il Of the act OF 1883 and
contains all OF the safeguards imposed by
that section In addition thereto We think
that the provisions OF that section are
merely directory ard prescribe a method
by which any party entitled TO a warrant
could. upon complying with its provisions,
compel the Issuance OF such warrant. but.
however that may be. II is very clear that
these provisions relate at most merely to
matters OF policy which, within the pTin-
cipie decided by the supreme court of the
United States in Plat vs.. Union Pacific
Railroad Company. supra. IS manifestiy
subordinate 10 the higher object OF having
the building completed from the fund
arising from the sale of lands granted by
congress for that purpose. We think fur
Their that 1t VIII be the duty of the treas
urer TO aishurse the money received IN ac-
cOFdance with the terms so proposed and
Vffu IA not in ter Is
provision OF the laws or the constitution
OF this state relating 70 the subject. he
becomes the proper custodian of the mon
eys so received by virtue OF section I05,
volume !, Hills code, which makes il his
duty 70 receive and keep all moneys OF
the state not expressly required by law TO
be received and kept by some other per-
SON and he becomes charged with the
trust Of disbursing them 10 accordance
with the terms upon which they are re-
ceived by him. In this respect the dispo-
sition Of such funds may he Iikened TO
that imposed by the law governing the re-
voTying fund. I. Hin. section LIB: also 10
the provisions OF the law relating 10 in
digent patients at the hospital for Inc in
sane, section 1888 volume 1. Hill. and of
chapter s.. laws or 1855 page 122, providing
for the appoTtionmeot Of the school fund
OF the state Nor do the moneys so re-
ceived fall within the provision Of the con-
out by the treasurer except in DurSu-
ance of an appropriation by law. nor
unless its payment he made within two
years from the first day Of May next after
the passage OF such an appropriation act"
since these moneys are charged with
special trust as above noticed. and must
be disbursed in accordance with the terms
OF the trust" For these reasons We think
that the acts complained OF 90 not consti-
fute any violation Of law or of duty i'm
posed upon the several respondents in the
premises, and that the resolution Of the
state capitol commission is in accord with
the objects and policy sought 10 ne attained
by the several legislative enactments re-
iating to the subject of the building Of 4
state capitol, and is authorized and war
ranted by law. In thus disposing Of the
case. we give fun force TO the various pro-
visions OF the constitution relating TO the
different officers Of the state who are made
respondents In this proceeding. but IL may
well be doubted whether the limitations
OF the constitution are al all applicable 10
the subject which We are here considering.
inasmuch as the whole subject matter Of
this case relates to the donation from tho
congress u the United States OF lands for
the purpose Of erecting "A suitable building
At the capital of the state. For such pur-
pose. and only for such purpose, We're the
lands granted. 1t would he beyond the
power OF the legislature TO uss an acre OF
said lands for any other purpose or to ap-
propriste a dollar of the funds arising
from their sale to the accomplishment OF
any other object. 1t would have been en-
tirely competent for congress. the donor.
to have particularly designated the manner
IN which the lands should be sold and their
proceeds applied; instead. however. of so
doing. 1t has left their disposition 10 the
control Of the legislature Of the state. II
would seem To follow that the legislature
might properly deal with the subject as
10 II might seem most beneficial. without
regard 10 any limitations imposed by the
d fferent provisions OF the constitution Ot
the state. To illustrate. suppose that con-
gress had provided that the moneys aris-
ing from the sale OF such lands should he
drawn from the treasury OF the state upon
the written order OF the secretary of the
state capitol commission. would any one
contend that the provisions OF section T. +
article :. OF the constitution. supra. rather /
than the act of congress making the grant (
would coutrol2 Inasmuch. however. as (
this proposition was not argued upon hear /
ing We have not considered IL in the de- /
cision Of the case, and prefer 10 rest the /
decision upon the views above outlined, /
rather than upon this latter suggestion. /
The judgment will be affirmed.
GORDON, J.
We concur:
HOYT c. J.