The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1898-02-26

The written opinion of the supreme
court in the case brought by State
Auditor Anderson against Secretary
of State Lewis was filed Wednesday.
1t is as follows:
The facts are. as they appear from
the record in substance as follows:
In the appropriation for current ex-
penses of the state government, passed
by the Fourth session of the Idaho leg
islature, there was included in the APP
preparation for secretary of state for
publishing house and senate journals,
and session laws Of 1897, two thousand
dollars"
The secretary of state made con-
tract with the Sentinel Printing Com
pany through its agent or manager for
the printing, binding, etc, of said
laws and journals for the sum of two
thousand dollars.
1t appears that of said sum of two
thousand the sum of six hundred and
seventy i've dollars, was paid to the
secretary of state for copying and pre-
pairing said laws and journals for the
printing.
1t is claimed by the petitioner that
the sum so received by the secretary of
state, was so received as fees by virtue
of his office, and as such should have
been paid into the treasury of the state
by the secretary of state under the pro.
visions Of section 10 of article 4 of the
constitution of Idaho. Said section -
provides inter ALA that the secretary of
state shall receive a salary OF one thous-
and eight hundred dollars per annum,
and further, "The compensation enum-
Grated shall be in full for all services
by said officers respectively, rendered
in any official capacity or employment
whatever during theirsrespective terms
of office. No officer named in this Sec
ton shall receive, for the performances
of any official duty, any fee for his
use; but all fees fixed by law for the
performance by either of them of any
official duty shall be collected in adj
vance and deposited with the state
treasurer quarterly to the credit of the
state"
1t is commended by defendant that the
labor SO performed by him was not
done in his official capacity, and that
it was done out of office hours, and
that therefore the compensation re-
ceiVed by him therefore does not come
within the provisions Of said section
10 and article of the constitution
We do not think this contention Of the
defendent is maintainable.
The secretary of state is made by
law the custodian of the laws passed
by the legislature and of the journals
of each house thereof. 1t is made his
duty to publish the same, and this duty
it seems to US includes, Of necessity
the preparation thereof for the hands
OF the printer. This has been the uni
form course, not only under the state
government as we are informed, but
was that always pursued under the ter
ritorial organization by the secretary
of the territory, to whose duties the
secretary Of state mainly succeeds. Il
any other course has been pursued
under the state government we are moi
aware of it, and it was certainly IN
warranted.
The laws when printed must be
authenticated by the certificate of the
secretary of state under the seal Of the
state, of which the secretary is always
the custodian. That the duty to pub
fish the laws does not include the prep
aration thereof for printing and pub
fishing, seem to Us inconsistent Will
reason or precedent.
But, assuming that it was not tn
duty of the secretary to prepare th'
copies of the law for the printer, ant
that in the letting of the contract i
was the understanding that the eXpenst
of making the necessary copies, il
dexes, etc, was to be deRe by thu