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

s+NAAAs INTO WEsen t-wN shall khA
80 tie proceeds Of all uo-~ys derived
from the sales % Isr5s granted Ia ,ha
49, y " aS1ingtcn for the purpose Of
sctIh3 public buildings al the state cap
49, afofn Which fund there i hereby ar
/ ntop'lsted the sssTn Of s-15.6so FOR the ascaI
- enaine March g. I~.f. and sZ7s.6so FOR
" IlscaI year ending March q. 1895. Pro-
fiaed, That no appronrfatfo- sbal -
itsa'is from any fund except the fund de-
lL.sa from the sale of lasss granted for
itaL" n.y.
section Il Of the same act reestes that.
ne state having 10 suitable building
- Napllpt purposes. and q long interval
ny eiapslng after this act goeS
mo effect before the work OF construction
oil tne capitol building can be begun. IN
.i"i srhes Is hereby declared 10 exist
section =. above quoted. was
So aile'.hed by the act approved
Aiarch u, 1896. as follows:
section l. That section L. Of rhan+er
i@a' o. Ire Laws Of Washington Of the Ses
si"a OF 10. - amended TO read as follows.
-. y. Ia order 90 carry out the provts-
Us O thls act there Is hereby created a
s1ifi @ y known a. the state capitol build
l,iS fund.' into which fuod shall he maid
c'' proceeds OF all money derived from the
saies Of land granted TO the state Of WASH
ii'st9h Tor the purpose OF erecting public
9hiidihgs at the state caoitaI from which
~ = -. mere - hereby appropriated the sum
Z. SsSt'"p' PROVIDED. That no appropriation
shall ne made from any fund excapt me
IHh1 derived from the sale OF lands granted
lot erecting public buildings al the state
capital Provided. further That any future
contract snail De for the completion OF the
buIiding according 10 the plans and sDecl-
Heauohs adopted BY the capitol building
commission, and shall he paid for m war
rants on sad state capitol building fund
In interpreting a statute, the
court wllf not look merely 70 a particular
clause In which general words may be
used, but VIII take in connection with IL
the whole statute Cor statutes on the same
sublecD, and tho objects and policy Of the
law as Indicated by its various provisions,
and give IL such a construction as viii
carry into execution the will Of the legis-
lature. ."
Brown VS.. Duchesne, 70 How. Rep. 49,
We must presume that the legislature,
by the acts so passed intended to secure
the building and completion OF a capitol
building from the proceeds OF sales OF the
lands so granted by congress. without re-
sort 10 other funds. We are also bound To
presume that the commission which il au-
thorlzed thereto is in good faith endeavor-
ING To effectuate the object and purpose OF
the legislature
We think a reference TO the acts OF 1898
ana 1880 and particularly 10 sections / and
Il, Of the act OF 1888. above quoted Is suf-
hcient to indicate that the object Of tho
Law was to secure the erection at tire
state capital OF A suitable building for leg
ishtlve, judicial and executive purposes
out OF the lands granted for that purpose
To the state by the general government
without burdeniug the treasury OF the
state. and that the policy of the law" WAS
10 intrust 10 the commission provided by
said act discretionary power TO determine,
subject only TO the limitations and restric-
tons imposed by said act. the best means
20 accomplish that object. What are these
limitations? First. that the cost Of said
building should not exceed 100000; sec
Ond, that no portion of such cost should be
borne by any fund excepting the fund
derived from the sale Of lands granted for
erecting public buildings at the state cap
.tai," and. thirdly. that said building
shall be completed by the 1st day OF Jan
uary, 1899" Such being the objects and
policy of the law" as indicated in its vari-
Gus provisions. the method Of procedure ia
subordinate and secondary thereto. and in
so far as such procedure is not Inconsistent
with the main object and policy. nor in
conflict with express mandatory provis-
ions OF the act. the precise method of its
adoption and exercise must be left 20 the
determination OF the commission charged
with the duty OF calculating the legisla
tive Will.
In Plat VS. Union Pacific Railroad Com
DdNNs - ~. - -. AHG supreme NOIEt u
the United States had under consideration
the act Of congress approved July /, 1862.
granting lands 10 said railroad company
''for the purpose Of aiding in the consiruc-
ton of the railroad and telegraph line,
etc" II Was provided in the third sec
ton OF said act that all lands not sold or
disposed OF before the expiration OF three
years after the completion OF the road
should b. subject 10 settlement and pre-
cmptfon like other lands Thereafter the
company accepted the grant. located its
line OF road and filed its map within the
requisite time. Thereafter in order Il raise
the funds necessary 20 build and complete
its line Of road IL issued its bonds. and TO
secure said bonds executed a mortgage
upon said granted lands The court
held that the mortgage & executed by
the company for the purpose Of raising
money necessary 10 continue and complete
the construction Of the road. disposed or
said lands within the meaning Of the act.
and was authorized thereby: also that the
provisions ~ the act should he construed
SO as TO effect their primary object. which
was 10 furnish aid in and during the con-
structton of he road. and that II could not
b,. defeated nor controlled by the secon-
dairy and subordinate purpose or opening
10 settlement and presumption such OF the
lands as should not he sold or disposed
of within tho designated period, AZ page
a Tho court says,
.'The principal objection urged sgains-
The infernretation We nave given 20 the
words sold or disposed Of is that n is
repuguant 10 the governmental policy
II must he admitted t1at congress
Ind tbat polirv in view bat this
poliev was manifestly subOrdipated To the
higher object or having the road CON
strietea. and constructed with the atd OK
the land grant.
IF as We think il manifest, the leading
urinary policy ot the act vas 10 place
No lands I'm the hands of the company %
br used for tho completion Of me ROAD as +
,btz work progressed. any secondary poll /
~ The government may also nav" ha1 N .
,.iavv ought NOT to he allowed - emh7r- !
ress or defeat that which vas primary
And W. are 10 give silcn construction /
In that language as VII carry OUT the +
conversational Intention
W cannot agree with the contention Or +
counsel that the proposed plan OF the conn (
mission as expressed ~ the itSt3i1tiN''
(,-sttf,itee "a borrowing 90 money hat we 7
,bink mat n falls within the principle IN
49,, 4, tAa cases decided ~ his court f
90 t.faud vs. Lawrence. - t9r az. ana
WINSTON vs. Spokane. q tto. >>> ah9 -
q, f4rfn,rauee NJ the objects 2n4 poH'N +
- the law creating zJcA coulWts~toH. L. .
~. entirely competent for thr 'T#iS.'i'iFe .
=, ..,-,,4,it ta board of comm s~lon'rs .
,ha business ~ erecting me hohi'h@. ana +
e., invest Su..h }eo7ft Win thF p'"tf nee
,.>s-,-, fo er-ompl SID tHr ohtett TOT "a''a F!
a. rss created. ANA t1.s taes nos 'anS''-
..,+.. a delegation ~ Jog sl3ftNe tN"+tAHS +
,.,. ,p, authority conferred ana %" dni} .