The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-24
THE CAPITOL QUESTION.
Arguments Before the Supreme CouT-
Relative to the Bids.

Olympia, Dec. 23.-SpeciaI. 1.-The case OF
the state OF Washington, On relation or the
attorney general. VS.. the state capitol COM
mission, respondents, was heard In tAe
supreme court today. The brief on behalf
OF the relator maintained that the plan
adopted by the commission to raise funds
for building purposes By issuing warrants
and selling the same in advance OF The
actual building operations Was unlawful,
because.
First-Ne.ther the commission nor au-
ditor, acting in unison, has authority 10
borrow money for any purpose.
Second-The means employed by the COM
mission in the performance OF their duty IS
measured BY the acts creating the COM
mission read in connection with other
general laws from which the proposed plan
is a departure.
Third-It would be a breach Of duty for
the auditor to issue warrants except upon
vouchers showing the amount Of labor al
ready performed or material furnished.
Fourth-It would be a breach of duty on
the part of the auditor TO sell warrants
Issued upon any state fund or for the COM
mission 10 sell warrants upon the state
capitol fund.
Flfth-It would be a breach of duty for
the auditor 10 allow vouchers for work
except by the issuance OF warrants upon
the building fund.
Sixth-It would be a breach OF duty for
the treasurer TO pay funds received from
the sale OF the proposed warrants upon the
proposed certificates, because there has
never been an appropriation by the Legs
lature OF the fund for that purpose. and
the treasurer Is forbidden TO dls0urse pub
lie moneys IN any way except IN reduction
or redemption OF warrants heretofore is
sued.
Seventh-The proposed plan, II otherwise
legal, contemplates a violation of the con-
stituuonal provision for5.dd.ng the dis
bursement Of moneys for any fund after
the lapse of two years from May / fol-
lowing the date Of appropriation
The argument OF the respondents was
pursued upon the following propositions:
First-The proposed exchange of war
rants for cash is IN conformity with the
practice long prevailing in the fiscal his
tory OF this state.
SecondZThe proposed exchange Is within
the natural meaning Of the words shall
be paid for IN warrants on said capitol
building fund"
Thlrd-If the proposed exchange IS not
within tho literal meaning of the words OF
the statute Il IS within the meaning OF
the words OF the statute literally con-
strued 10 give effect to the purposes OF
the legislature.
Fourth-It IS one Of the necessary i'm
pllcatlons OF the acts OF 1923 and 1855. con-
change should he an appropriate method
or giving effect 20 tho act
Fgfth-The power 10 make this exchange
being necessary TO the execution Of the
power conferred on common authority 10
exercise. such power IS conferred
Slxth-Sectlon Il. chapter l3S, Laws OF
1895 does not directly or by necessary i'm
cl.catlon forbid such exchange.
Seventh-The act OF March -. 1855. for
bidding the auditor 10 issue warrants ex-
cept upon duly certified vouchers. does
not forbid the proposed exchange. The
act Of 1898. providing for the erection OF
the capitol and amenjatory OF the act OF
1895 are special acts and therefore the act
OF March -. 1895. does not apply 10 them
unless tho Intention that ii should be y
pIlcablo 30 them clearly appears
Eghth-The state treasurer has custody
OF the money received N exchange for the
warrants. since they are moneys Of the
state not expressly required by law 10 be
kent by some other person"
Upoa these lines able arguments We're
made by Harold Preston on behalf ~ tho
relator. aud James \. HaiEht for respond
erts. The casa was then taken under ad-
N.sement by TIE court