Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-11-16
Supreme Court Orders Auditor
Richards to Honor Requisition.
BOARD MAY DRAW MONEY.
An interpretation Placed Upon Two
Acts OF the Legislature Opinion
by Justice aIIncr.

The supreme court delivered an opin-
ION today In the case Of the University
Of Utah Va Morgan Richards, Jr.. state
auditor. appellant. affirming the ludg-
ment of the Third district court.
This was nm action IN mandamus.
brought by the board Of regents OF tho
State University. 20 compel Auditor
Richards 20 issue his warrant f.r 5000.
10 Dr. expended by the board under the
rrnvlainn1 OF chap o. OF the laws VI
1879. he having refused 60 do ~ ON the
ground that the provisions OF chan. go
~ the same laws had not boon complied
with The only question Involved was
The Interpretation or construction OF
these two acts ~ the legislature.
The legislature OF 1898 enacted chap.
Q, page 90 which provides Cor the re-
muval NJ the University TO the site
granted By Congress, The nrHt section
nuthorlzr1 the expenditure OF f2o0.uoo
coz 30 mitch thereof az may be ngcca-
aary 10 plat the grounds. procure plans
Greet necessary buildings. etc. section
Z of the same act provides for the ape
riourati1n % 100000 hy tho State. 90
carry out tho purposCH referred TO M
Sec. !, the board NJ regents to draw
$4,000 IN 1879 ana the balance in 1900.
at such times as the board deemed
proper This act went into effect Feb
ruary gan. 1879 Subsequently. nt the
same session. the legislature enacted
chapter 80. which amended section 800
or the revised statutes Tor 1905. ana
reads nH follows THAT ON the fret
day OF each month. or 40 soon thcrcnf-
tor nH the bills Tor the expenses Tor the
previous month have hpon audited. the
board 90 control ~ each State iuatitu-
tinn. UT the proper committee thereof
duly authorized hy the board Tor such
purpose, shall make a rcquiHtlOn upon
the state auditor Tor warrant lu Huiil-
ciout amount Go pay the bills 30 audit
cd, ana thuroupuu tho state auditor
shall draw Die warrant against the up-
prurfiHtiun made Tor such Institution
Tor the am unit named in the requlsi-
ton. in "a n n the treasurer ~ the
governing board ~ The Institution, ur
boz case OF the State prison in favor of
the warden thereof To obtain such
warrant the treasurer Of the board uf
The warden must present to the state
auditor written authorization from
The board" This act took effect March
ath, 1888. ana 10 was commended hy Mr..
Richards thnt " repealed part OF Fec-
ton @ chapter 0.
The suur,me Court holds that n the
act referred TO WIS repealed u was By
a. not good law zone act" the oplu-
lon reads. "is not to be- allowed TO de-
feat another u by reasonable constitute
ton The two can be made 10 stand to-
grihcr."
II was also contcnded by appellant
that the later act passed at tho same
session repealed thg previous one. The
court holds differently however. and
says that 10 mutt BE- first made 10 up-
pear that the later act IL contrary 10 or
inconsistent with uhc former IN order
20 justify the contention that the mrs,
IL repealed.
Tho court quotes from sutherland on
Statutory Construction and says ID has
o. pertinent bearing ou the question in
issue. The court also quotes claus,
90 the former act. which provides that
"ull laws ln conflict herewith shall not
De- construed to prevent the carrying
out of the provisions o. this act"
"Thln clause the opinion says. 90
unusual and was evidently Inserted Tor
"a purpose % does not In words repeal
any other law, but Affects the ConHtruc-
tlun uf 100 laws In conflict and dlHlrmH
them from amy repeating ofact upon the
act 10 lH seemingly u declaration ON
the part % Che LEGISLATURE that The act
Wua enacted Cor special, particular
and temporary purpose, and that %
should be- enforced according 90 lt1
terms without regard 20 any other law
On force" In conclusion the court rayHi
I'VE hold II was the exclusive pro-
vince Of the legislature 90 decide how,
when. ana hy whom money should De-
drawn by the regents OF the University
OF Utah under tho provisions ~ chapter
o. a discretion was intended Ca De-
vested IN the board ~ regents, and We
hrr satisfied that lu Hn Tor 100 they have
gone they have NOT exceeded the author
ity. but worr acting within the clear
provisions % The statute IN making the
demand and rUqulEton lu uuoNlnn."
The court then orders that the judy
mont ~ tho district court, in overriding
appellants demurrer, and ln directing
the porcmutOry writ OF mandate 10 it-
sue, Boz affirmed.
Justice Miner delivered the decision
aud was cuncurrsd In by Chief Justice
NIL. mn I---LL.--- IL.-L-L..