The Monticellonian., 1901-10-11
ARKANSAS SIAIE NENS.
Chancellor Martin Holds That Con. yict Lease Case Cannot Be
 Decided on Demurrer.
OCCURRENCES OF 4 WEEK BRIEFLY STATED
Census Report shnws Wonderful Inoreas. fin Manufacturing For This Stato-R.. ports of State Treasurer and State Land Commissioner
Convict Lease Case.

In the suit of the Arkansas Brick Manufacturing Company against the board of penitentiary commissioners in Pulaski chaneery court, inyolyine the validity of the contract with the company for the hire of 300 conyicts for a period of ten years, Chancellor Martin held that the case cannot he decided on demurrer. The courts ruling follows:
 First. That the motion of the Brick Manufacturing Company to strike from the files the motion of the state to be made a party should be oyer. ruled, because it is founded upon the false theory that the state not being q party to the suit cannot file any pa. per until 1t is made a formal party to the record. when as a mater of correct practice it may, by leave of court. file a petition to be made a party, and upon that motion, that is, the motion of the state. the court will determine its legitimate relation to the litigation and it's right to complain or defend without striking from the files of the states petition.
 Second. That the states motion Lo be made party, solely for the pur. pose of moving to dismiss the entire action, should be overruled, because CD while the state cannot be sued in any court without it's consent, upon the theory of law derived from the common law, and emphasized by con stitution and statute that the soy ereign will do no wrong, but will al. ways do justice without compulsion from any tribunal When, however, one or any number of it's officers are guilty of acts done in the name of the state, which are alleged to be wrong, such as attempting to annul. by a sim pie resolution of board, without the right to be heard contract. the courts have always interfered by proper process to prevent such acts as are illegal on the part of the states officers. and, as has been decided by the supreme court of Arkansas and q the supreme court of Arkansas and q large number of others. the courts will not permit the sovereign to in. terpose it's sovereign exemption to pre- sent an investigation of che real mer= its of a controversy growing out of the alleged illegal acts of it's officers and (2) if the court should sustain the motion of the state to be made party for the exclusive purpose of moving to dismiss the action. it's duty would be to sustain the motion only to the extent that it affects the party making it, that is. the state; and the result would be simply to dismiss as to the state and leave the action still pending as to the other defendants, the officers whose acts, if illegal, may be restrained. No useful purpose can be subseryed. and the court will not do the fruitless thing of making the state a party to the suit for the pur- pose of dismissing as to it, and thus leave the action just as it stood before.
 Thlrd. Some of the questions aris- ing on the demurrer to the bill are of such character that an inyestiga- tion into the facts should be had The demurrer admits all of the material allegations of the bill, and admits, in this case. too much.