New-York tribune., 1900-05-03
THE CONTROLLER MUST AUDIT.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN A CANAL
IMPROVEMENT CASE.

IMPROVEMENT CASE.
Albany. May . (specian-villiam J. Morgan the
state Controller expressed great satisfaction To-
sv over the decision Of the Court OF Appeals yes
terdav upon the suit Of Charles w Grahhis ana
William T O'Connor 10 recover SSDOD from the
S-sre which they considered due to them for GER
+aiu work in the Improvement Of the Erie Canal.
under the ssOoo0O3 Canal Improvement act be-
tween Rochester and Macedon- The evidence taken
nv the Canal Investigation Commission formed
the basis Of the refusal of the state Controef 10
nav the hill Of Cranuis & O'Ccnnor-
The notable thing about the decision OF the Court
- Anneals however is that it clearly gives the
Controller Of the State power 10 aua'' al oiiis
arainst The state ard distinctly SO far as the
claims OF the canal contractors are concerned 'hs'
-be state Engineer cannot audit them
The Court Of Appeals in its judgment, says II
rs5 bee1 suggested that the State Engineer shouId
be The auditor for the canal claims arising during
rbe xpenditure OF the 100000 appropriation, but
:. &c 4frcult 10 ind in Section OF Chapter ~ Of
The Laws OF 1925 and Chapter 794 OF the Laws OF
;sas satisfactory evidence that the legislature in
tended take away from the auditing officer OF
The State this important duty. q duty in harmony
with the general work Of that officer, and 70 confer
il instead upon an officer who has never in the
history Of the State been treated Of as fiscal
officer in any sense
Chief Judge Parker reviews the acts passed con-
ferring upon the State Controller authority TO
audit bills against the State and then adds:
counts IN tts State. both against the general fund
and the canal fund. and the final vesting OF the
mower in the Controller. where il has been since
1sSg with the exception OF year for which
period by the accident rather than the design Of
legislation the power was taken from him only to
be restored again Il would TO be quite absurd
10 argue that there is be found any language in
the acts Of 1885 and 1897 which would indicate an
intention TO confer upon the State Engineer power
70 audit and 70 take that authority from the Con
rroUer IN whom il was clearly vested az the time
of the passage Of the act OF 1885 Our conclusion
.hcn is that since the first day Of october. 1897.
when the State Finance law went into effect. the
controller has been vested with the power TO audit
al claims. whether presented against the canal
<lnd or the general fund q the State, when pay
u1ent out Of the Treasury is provided by law,
which Of course includes this claim The audit
ing of an account by the Controller involves a
iuEfcial function He IS required, in the language
of the books Ito hear, TO examine, to pass upon.
u sertIe and adjust" That function he cannot be
required 10 exercise in any particular way by man
dannus for as was said by Judge Vann, in People
ex rel Harris agt- Commissioners Q4S y. Y. 20.
That would substitute judgment or discretion
Of the Court the writ for that OF the per
son persons against whom the writ was issued
the Controllers position is wei taken, the
Judgment Of the Appellate Division should be re-
versed and the proceeding dismissed with cost