Daily inter mountain., 1899-06-12
Renders a Decision In State
Printing Case.
WELCOME DISBARMENT
Attorneys for the Accused File a
Demurrer to the Complaint of
Fred WhiteSide.
Special to the Inter Mountain.

Special to the Inter Mountain.
Helena, June 12.--'rhe supreme court
today granted the motion of counsel for
the Independent to quash the writ of
mandamus issued to the State PUBLISH
ing company to compel the governor and
state treasurer to approve the contract
with the State Publishing company for
state printing. In January the state
board of examiners save the State Pub
fishing company a contract for the state
printing, being the lowest bidder. The
constitution provides that the governor
and treasurer must approve the contract
to make it legal. This they declined to
do because OF the claim that when the
concern had the contract before the state
had not received full value. They APP
proved the contract with the lndepend-
ent, the next lowest bidder. Mandamus
proceedings We're commenced to compel
Hogan to furnish the state printing to
the State Publishing company. The SUI
preme court denied the writ, holding in
effect that it was Indispensable to the
validity of the contract that 1t be APP
proved by The governor and treasurer as
provided by the constitution. Then the
State Publishing company applied for
writ of mandamus to compel the COVER
nor and treasurer to approve its contract
as that of the lowest bidder. Counsel for
the Independent filed a motion to quash
the writ of mandamus This was argued
to the court several weeks ago, and to-
day. as tated, the court decides that the
motion must be granted. The court holds
in an opinion by the chief justice that
under the constitution It cannot interfere
with the acts Of the coordinate branch
Of the q government In other words.
that a mandamus does not lie against the
governor. In passing upon the matter OF
authority of the governor and treasurer
to veto the contract the court said in
part:
'These officers. acting within the sphere
of their constitutional duties, are ac-
countabe under their oaths TO the people
only just as the individual members of
this court. and 1t is no part of our duty
to inquire into their motives in withhold
ing their approval from the contract let
by the board to re,ator. If they have
acted arbitrarily if they have chosen to
pervert the functions of their high offices
to vile, partisan uses or to the purposes
of favortism, as is suggested by allega-
tions in the affidavit. we have no power
to restore their consciences and bring
them to a sense Of their duty. The forum
in which they are to be judged is the
minds and consclences of the people, |
NliOSe servants lHty are anu NllO uioile
can hold them respons bile for the manner
in which they perform their duties.''
Two appeals from Deer Lodge were
also decided. Matthew Smith VS.. John j.
Denniff, was an action brought to quiet
title to a water right and ditch, and to
enjon the defendant from diverting any
of the water. The plaintiff appealed
from judgment in favor of the defendant.
In an opinion by Justice Pigott the SUI
preme court affirmS the lower court.
j. b. Reynolds vs.. John Fitzpatrick and
j ohm Conley as sheriff and deputy sheriff !
of Deer Lodge county, for damages for |
the conversion of certain personal prop
erty valued at 81 300, consisting of saloon |
fixtures, etc. seized by defendants in |
their official capacity. The lower court !
granted nonsuit. This the supreme
court. in an opinion by Justice Hunt, re-
versed, holding that it was not justified |
by the testimony.
VIM. Wallace Jr, b. p. Carpenter and
Jesse Root, counsel for John B. Welcome,
today filed in the supreme court de- ,
murrer to the petition and affidavit in pro-
ceedings instituted by Fred Whteside to
have John Il. Welcome disbarred be- +,
cause of alleged connection with the al
legged bribery of members of the legisla-
ture in the interest Of w. A. Clark's sena-
torial candidacy. The demurrer denies
about every allegation set forth in White
sides petition. 1t asks that proceedings
be dismissed because Welcome has not |
been convicted of moral turpitude, be-
cause none of the acts alleged were COM
mitted as attorney at law nor in his pro-
fessional capacity, because none Of the
acts alleged have been supplemented by
any criminal conviction, because no act |
amounting to deceit or malDra ctica in tha