The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-06-13

whether the contract price of the State
publishing company was, as claimed,
lower, and therefore in conformity with
the constitutional provision requiring
contracts to go to the lowest bidder
After commenting upon the jurisdiction
of the courts by mandamus over the
executive and the constitutional code
provisions in regard to the letting and
approval of contracts, the court says:
The relator State Publishing company
contends that the provision of the con-
stitution requiring the approval of the
governor and treasurer of the state
passed in pursuance of the constitution,
imposes a merely ministerial duty upon
these officers, and that their refusal to
approve the contract is capricious and
arbitrary and therefore subject to re-
view by this court. The use of the
word must in the statutes construed
by counsel for relator to mean that the
obligation merely to approve rests upon
them and that they cannot refuse to
do so after the board has declared that
a certain bid is the lowest responsible
bid and let the contract to the bidder
making it, may be unfortunate; that
the governor was made member or
this board whose duty it is to let these
contracts has put him in position
where he can refuse to approve the ac-
ton of a majority of the board of
which he is a member, and thus put
his veto upon proceedings in which he
takes part. Nevertheless his duty as
a member of this board in relation to
these contracts is statutory, while his
duty in approving or disappearing the
action of the board is constitutional,
and it is our opinion under the provis-
ion of the constitution that he and the
4 \ f1,a
in a ministerial way the action of the
board in letting the contract. The ex-
preston shall be subject to the APP
provaf implies that there may be
disapproval. The word approve means
to pronounce good; to think or judge
well of, admit the propriety or excel
lence of; be pleased with commend.
The constitution does not define the eX-
tent to which they must go in the in
vestigation of the action of the board,
nor does it require that they must act
together or state any reason for their
action. Yet from the very fact that
their approval is indispensable under
the constitution, the conclusion is ire
sistible that their action is designed to
be check upon the action of the board.
This is the implication from the terms
used and the. rule of construction that
every word of the instrument should be
rendered operative, if this be true, in
the discharge of their duty, they must
use their judgment and discretion as to
all matters into which the board could
or should inquire This includes not
only the pecuniary responsibility of the
bidder, but his judgment, skill, ability,
capacity and integrity as well. The
governor having a general knowledge 4
of the affairs of the state and presump-
lively fitted by his superior qualif1ca-
tons to pass judgment upon the action
of the board. it was thought proper by
the constitutional convention that he
should give the taxpayers the benefit of
his judgment and discretion. The treas
urer being in position in which he is
presumed to be ably informed as to the
condition of the states finances, it was
thought proper to require the exercise
of his judgment and discretion: also, as
the ultimate purpose was, by this sys-
tenn of counter checks, to secure econ
omy and prevent favorites, it is not for
us to say whether the provision is
wise one or not. These officers, acting
within the sphere of their constitution
al duties, are accountable under their
oaths to the people only. just as are
the individual members of this court,
and it is no part of our duty to inquire
into their motives in Withholding their
approval from the contract let by the
board to the relator. If they have act
pervert the functions of their high Of
fees to vile. partisan uses or to the
purposes of favoritism, as is suggested
by the allegations in the affidavit, we
have no power to restore their con-
sciences and bring them to 3 sense of
their duty The forum in which they
are to be judged is the minds and con-
sciences of the people, whose servants
they are and who alone can hold them
responsible for the. manner in which
they perform their, duties"
Other Cases,
Two appeals from the district court
sf Deer Lodge county were also de-
cided to-day. Matthew Smith VS..
John J. Denniff was an action brought
by the plaintiff to quiet title in him
to a water right and ditch and to en-
join the defendant from diverting any
of the water. A non-suit was granted
on motion of the defendant. Plain
tiff appealed from the Judgment there
upon entered in favor of defendant.
The supreme court, through Justice
Pigott, holds that the non.suit was
properly granted and affirms' the judg-
ment.
J. B. Reynolds VS.. John Fitzpatrick
and John Conley as sheriff and dep
uty sheriff of Deer Lodge county, This
suit was begun to recover damages
for the conversion Of certain personal
property, consisting of saloon furni-
ture, etc, seized by the defendants in
their official capacities as sheriff and
deputy sheriff, respectively. The value
of the property was given at $1,000.
A non-suit was granted and judgment
entered for defendants for their costs.
IN,,N,, hi ind lot