The record-union., 1895-10-15
TIE CONTROLLER ANSWERS LEWIS.
Why He Refused to Draw His
Warrant.
The Law Authorizing the Expert's
appointment Was Defeated in
the Legislature.

Controller Colgan has filed in the Su-
perior Court his answer to the complaint
of Thomas Lewis, Expert of the State
Board of Examiners. who is suing for a
writ of mandate to compel the Controller
to draw warrant for his salary.
In his answer the Controller denies
that there was due from the State on July
81. 1850, or at any other time, S166 66, or
any other sum, to Lewis.
lie also denies that il was at any time
his duty TO draw the warrant upon its
auditing and transmission to him by the
Board of Examiners. He AYERS that the
Legislature has refused to create the Office
OF Expert to the State Board of Examin-
ers. and that they have failed TO prescribe
or define the duties Of the office. or to
make any appropriation with which to
pay the salary OF such office, or to dele
gate to the State Board of Examiners or
other officers of the State authority 10
create or define the duties of such Office.
He further states that at the last session
of the Legislature Assembly bill 90 was
introduced, read and recommended for
passage, and was entitled "An A ct TO pro-
vide Tor liking the com penSatIon and re-
ducing the number OF EN- pIoyes paid out
of the appropriations made by the State
OF moneys that would otherwise go to the
State."i
He gives the text Of the bill, Section
OF which provided that it should be the
duty of the State Board OF Examiners to
visit at least once q year and examine
Into all prisons, insane asylnmS, the
Home for the Feeble Minded, Deaf,
Dumb aud Blind Asylum, Whittier State
school and Preston School of Industry.
To make themselves familiar with the
necessities OF each and Tor the PURPOSE
OF making such examinations the said
board shall be allowed 10 employ an ex-
pert, at salary not TO exceed 5000, and
should also be allowed their travelling
expenses.
That by the said bill there was sought
to be imposed on the Board OF Exaniu-
ers new and responsible duties, and for
that reason aud to enable them TO per-
form such duties, the power was dele
gated to them to employ such expert;
that the Legislature having, in view Of
the Assembly bill go, ana long subse-
quent TO the introduction OF the general
appropriation bill, made provision in the
latter To meet the salary provided for, Tor
such expert.
lie iurther recites that the general ap-
preparation bill passed and became law
March s. 1892 and a. the time OF its pas
sage there was Included therein the sum
OF 5000, salary for the expert OF the State
Board OF Examiners, and the further sum
OF =. 900 for the travelling expenses of the
said board. He is informed and believes
that the sums mentioned were included
in the general appropriation bill only IN
conten platlon OF the passage Of Assem-
bly, bill 525, aud for no other purpose.
Assembly Bill 5Z6 failed to become a
law, being defeated in the Senate on
March 18th. six days subsequent 10 the
passage OF the general appropriation bill.
and has never become law OF the State.
The Controller therefore claims that the
employment OF Lewis by the State Board
OF Examiners was in excess OF the author
ity OF the board conferred by law, either
expressed or implied. and further. that
the board has no power or authority TO
examine or expert the books or accounts
OF any Stale institution or officer, ana that
that duty Is devolved by law upon the
Controller, and or him alone.
lie therefore asks that the writ OF man
date be dismissed. ami that ho have judy
ment Tor his costs.