Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-07-17
CAPITOL,
The Kincaid Warrant SUIT
Ss-i-A-ruai Rsoort q State Treas
ursf n0t Filed.

u1Irnz< AZ lrle Elfrlll.l- : ---a--- ~ ----
-.uf-s---sl rsFDFt = ths c0ndiiil1
q trs state trszs1TY rsQ1irsd % -
Fless July +. b1t ELECTED The infgruz-
tsou tb,st % sch report hsd Jet oeea
Elsi-
F san. Fgcss- q TIE safe h11s@
. xr1-,5s hss s1o1se5ed in driving q
E tbe uarzStes that Wsrs feeding .
TIE EIIIoE trees by sprzyisg literally
Tbs STATE Esztber b1rsz1 forecasts
a. foll5rs- sunday and Noo6zy
fzlr Tzrusr.
TIE STATE o@cizls sDi tLslr families
sre al preparing % take s1uueT cut
inxs-
/ The rsoent decisio1 o state SuPt-
Irwin il the Sunnyside s-bool di--
trfc, case i entirely disregaFded oy
+ the directors. and his decision has u
Z poser behind il % enforce his decrss.
( Ii seems a farce % put the people 70
I all the trouble q Appealing and hir-
Ing LAWYERS and having trial only %
learn Afterwards that the opinion
rendered has 10 more force than
kitten meEing
! Gardner FOues o. the state house
grounds today gathered 3 quantity q
| beautiful flowers aud distributed
them 10 the Christian EndeavOr Deo-
PIE on the passing trains
Allen R. JOY. q Portland, received
: notarial commission today from
state departments
THE KINCAID WARRANT SUI.
| 1t is earnestly expected that tie
supreme court Eill sOon hand dDEn .
decision sustaining the secretary n
state. II. r. Kincald. il his refusal q
draw warrants and Issue about . ni-l J.
lion dollars script before the .eS i>la'
iture has authorized it. Mr. ki1c1id
thinks it would be a crime for A.m 10
dc this and the people almost uDaLi'
uously. regardless Of political cO.L-
, plexlOn or party lines, think he j,
. right. EYen those who thought he
was wrong in trying 10 keep the rail-
road commission from getting tbrir
money think that the secretary is
right about this warrant case. II the
supreme court should decide against
the secretary they might just as well
declare the entire constitution Of Or
egon null and void and say that the
people absolutely have no rights. The
secretary Of state is simply a servant
: Of the people and has absolutely NJ
right 10 issue a dollar OF script until
the people through their representa-
tiyes in the legislature appropriate
the money and authorize him TO issue
script against it. Will the supreme
court decide a section Of the cODstitu'
tion void The members Of the su'
preme court are directly interested iu
the case in a pecuniary way and many
people are asking "Will this in
fuence them in their decision = 1t i:
10 be presumed and hoped not. But
really, is a court which is directly and
pecuniarly interested, morally quail
fed to act on the case . There ara
eminent legal advisors who assert
that the court is disqualified TO pas:
upon the case. Be this as ii may, the
case is one Of the greatest Importance
that has been before the court fol
many years. II is plain that if the
secretary o. state, or any oficel
OF state department were
asked to profOrm an act clearly be
yond the hints limits down in the con-
stituticn, or attempting 10 act in a
manner inhibited by the constitution
the supreme court could be called
upon 10 restrain such an official from
any conduct in conflict with the
fundamental law. But in this case
Secretary Kincaid is seeking TO act
strictly according to the letter
of the constitution. He is striv'
ing To keep within the bounds
of that instrument as il ap
plies 10 his duties as auditing Otficer
| He is refusing TO go beyond the limit
ations laid down for him in that in
strument as construed by this very
court in 1876. He desires that con
duct Of his official duties as a servant
. OF the people shall not pass the limin-
atiOns expressly placed upon him by
the constitution framed by the peO
pie themselves. There is absolutely
no conflict between his department
and the higher law of the state
and hence the supreme court can have
no Jurisdiction in the matter. Th'
attemps TO create new duties for the
secretary OF state, exactly the reverse
OF thOse prescribed for him by the
law, the constitution and also by ;
supreme court decision, on this ldenti
cal question is a novelty in jurisprud'
ence.