The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-05-24
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Decision Rendered on the Kent
q Bell Contract.
CASE is NOT FINISHED
The Question Of Citizenship Is Yet to
Be Decided The Court Again
Passes Upon the Thornton
Thomas ~Receivership.
spec,sI p,spatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch TO the Standard.
Helena, May 2.-The supreme court to-
day in an opinion by the whole court over
ruled the motion of the attorney general
to quash the application for a writ of
prohibition restraining the state capitol
commission from continuing to carry out
the present contract with Bell & Kent.
the architects engaged to prepare plans
for the new state house. Standard readers
will remember that recently w. L. Don
ovan, at the instance of other state archi-
tects, applied to the supreme court for a
writ Of prohibition on the ground that the
contract with Bell & Kent could not be
legally carried out since they We're not
citizens of the state at the time the con-
tract was signed. Attorney General No
Ian filed a motion to quash the writ on the
grounds that 1t did not state facts suffi-
cient to entitle the petitioner to the relief
sought.
In overruling the motion the court does
not say that under the law prescribing
the qualifications of architects for the
state house Bell & Kent are barred. but
it says that the question of citizenship
should be set forth in the answer. The at
torney general will in a few lays ME an
answer to the application for the writ. IN
passing upon the answer the court VIII
probably say whether under the law Bell
& Kent are entitled 20 draft plans and SUI
pervise the construction of the building.
In overruling the attorney generals mo-
ton the supreme court said:
The contention of the relator Donovan)
is hat under the law the board has no au-
thority or power to enter into the con-
tracts mentioned in the affidavit with any
architect not a citizen of this state. The
determination OF this question involves a
construction of the law passed by the
legislative assembly at its last session.
(See Session Acts 1897. pages 166-17D. This
act amended the former legislation OF the
state providing for the erection OF a state
capitol building. The attorney general con-
tends that section 2 of the act of 1891 does
not limit or confine the board i'm procuring
plans and specifications prepared by ar
chitects who are not citizens of the state.
1t is true that this section does not I'm
express terms require the board to con-
tract with architects who are citizens of
the state for such plans and specifications.
But section 3 of the same act. after pro-
viding that the board shall contract with
the architect chosen for compensation
and prescribing the duties of the archi-
tect. fixing his bond, etc, has this pro-
viso: That all architects, superintendent
and contractors shall be citizens of the
state of Montana
ut is true that the board is authorized
DIV III ldW oI 1875 W aNdli iNotiA VI t'N
plans and specifications heretofore adopt
ed for a state capitol building VI the
same can be modified and used I'm thu
construction of the new and differen1
building to be erected by the board undo
the amended law. But it does not appeal
by the application in this case that an,
modified plans and specifications hereto
fore adopted for a capitol building arr
being now used by the board. or tina
the board contemplates using such plan
and specifications in erecting the building
II is alleged that the board has contract
ed for plans and specifications Furnished
by architects not citizens of the state
and has also contracted with such archi
tects to superintend the construction ~
the building. We are not prepared. there
fore, to hold that the affidavit for the wri
does not state facts sufficient TO entitl
the relator to relief. II the plans and spec
ifcations contracted for are the modiie'
plans and specifications heretofore adopt
ed for a state capitol building this fac
should be pleaded by answer. If the per
sons to whom the contracts mentioned 1
, the affidavit were or are citizens. or
l either of them was or is a citizen of tn
: state. such fact should be set out I'm a
! answer. These matters cannot be deter
U mined upon the hearing of this motion ur
|, der discussion.
1.-THE motion is overruled."
! The court again passed upon the Thorr
Z ton-Thomas receivership muddle b
. granting A. ]. Johnston q writ of cert
orari to review the action OF Judge Clar
; cy in ordering him ~(Johnston) committe
. to Jail for contempt for not paying OF
some of the money deposited in Clar
8 & Brothers bank by f. II. Hubbard. r.
o ceiver for the defunct company. Not lon
{ ago the court held that Judge Clancy ha
overstepped his Jurisdiction in appointin
Mr.. Hubbar receiver without the reque'