The Arizona sentinel., 1896-11-14
YUMA'S BIG CANAL.
Judge H. G. Baker Renders $
 lecis:on in the Suit
Of the ArizOna Improvement Co., ys.
 M. J. Nugent, Supt. Territorial Prison, in Faver of the Former.
Below is Judge Bakers deci<icn in full in the Territorial Prison Contract
The State Of Arizona Improvement
 Company, Petitioner,

Company, Petitioner,
 NJ. J. Nugent. Superintendent Terri
 torill prison, Respondent.
 This is an applicatior on the part of the petitioner for writ of man d'n Us aghil 8; the respondent, re- quiring hi Il to furnish the petitioner ten cen jets out of the Territorial : P.':s' Il, for labor on a proposed canal or water way in Yuma County. The application IS based upon certain rontract entered into between the Ttr itor th ough it's Board of Con- tr1l, a Id the petitioner. The contract in terms provides that the petitioner shall have exclusive control of ali the able bOlied male convicts in sail prison from the hours of q. m till } P. m., for term of ten years. and that the superintendent of such pri- son shall furnish such convict to the petitione upon d. m1nl. The execu ton of the contract is a lmitted The superintendent r:fnsed to comply with the requ, st of the petitioner to be furnished with ten such convi .ts An alternative writ of mandamus was 
 issued, to which he answered, setting out d number of r as ms why the fin Il writ should nat issue, two of which are deemed oi controlling effect.
 First It is claimed that the con tract is invalid, brclnse it is uncon- scionable, negotiable and without alteration.
 Second: That the petitioner is endeav0rimg to en'orce a irivate con tract by this p~ncreling and that mandamns is not the appropriate remedy m such case.
 The main principles governing alan- damus cases agnin>t pnilc officers m be briefly stated thus: Where party has clear legal right, to the enjoyment Of whi.h some ministerial duty I,y d public officer is neces sary, and he has no other plain. SD e ly Il ld adequate remedy, he is enti rl to @rlt uf man lam IS tn enforce thA pei ,formance 9f that duty hy the officer A ministerial duty hevolving mp n an officer Is one expressly imp 'sed by some law, or one ces-ariiy arising as an incident to the otfic,. A private contract inv"lYing no otiici l duty will not be enforreI by m .ndam as, but where it does involve public trust or official duty, that duty may be en- forced, since that Is one O. the grounds for tn issuance of the writ. It is t, be observed, that this controversy is to be determined splelr upon the face of the contract and pleadin ,s as ap- piled 10 the law In othrr words, 1t Is a question of law. Whether the erect, or profitable or unavoidable, and all other similar questions are considerations, not for the court, hut for the ptrtirs to determine. II l. the bu%ine of courts to emf ,rce con tracts, not to m ike or mo If, them. In this ease. thrref nre, tn. sole, duty of the court anl t.ie me l<ure of it's power is t" apply the law to the face O. tue contract.
 Is the contract nnconsci0nable, inrpniTailp and without ;n>i Ieratiol? Is the intrinsic nature aud sui ct matter Of this tranSaction such that no man in his senses. an not under dtlu>ion, would make an no honest and air man would accept?
 The subject mat ter of the agreement Is the le ISing of the convict lAhor to be employed in the construction of q canal, and payment for the lthor to he made in water rights or shares in such canal The practice of leasing out convict labor t" private indivii- nals prevails in several states of the Union. These contracts are similar in principle to suhcrlption to the stock of railways by counties and mum qualities. Contracts hetween private individuals to ali in the con strnctinn of proposed waterways or clnalS and remIln.rItinn tO be nad,