The Teton peak. [volume] (St. Anthony, Idaho) 1899-1904, 1904-01-21
syrpREAIE COURT
REFUSES WRIT.
The state May Go on With The
Issuing OF Its Bonds.

ooolication of Edwin Stein for a
writ Of prohibition against the gov
enor secretary of state, attorney
general, and state treasurer, restrain
mo .hcse officers from issuing the
eats bonds authorized by the last
LEGISLATURE. As $4,000 CT this
bond is.ue was for the payment Of
qny sugar bounty that might be
earned, last year, the case has ex-
cited much interest il that city and
ali over the state. The court does
NOT 90 into the question at all OIL
the constitutionality of a sugar
bountv, but merely decides against
the application on the technical
point that writ Of prohibition will
not lie against an officer of the state
from performing ministerial act.
| This decision refers to a former de
cison of the court in the case of
Williams VS.. Lewis.
Major Richard w. Young,
attorney of the Idaho Sugar compa-
nv. said that the sugar bounty
Question will have to come up sep
aratelv and will be tried Oh its iner-
| is before the court. What the
next step will be has not as yet
been decided on, but as the repre-
sentatives of the state of Idaho are
daily certifying to the correctness
| Of the sugar company 5 claims
against the state i'll turning out
sugar, and as certificates will be
issued the company fer the bounty
earned, it is probable that the COM
pany will have to take steps to en-
| force the issuance of state warrants,
should such issuance be denied by
the state auditor 1t is hoped how
ever, that the official will not re-
fuse to follow the plain mandates
| Of the law, and that there will be
no trouble in the collection of the
claims.
The case decided was conducted
before the supreme court by John
A. Bagley, attorney general, on be
half of the validity of the act,
Messrs. Wood & Wilson, attorneys
for other defendants interested, and
Ralph P. Quarrels, attorney for the
plaintiff, Stein. The points relied
upon by Mr.. Bagley were as fol
lows.
First The official capacity of
the defendants and of the boards
created by the constitution and laws
OF the state of Idaho, authorized to
perform the acts mentioned and
complained of in the petition, does
not sufficiently appear therein.
Second The writ of prohibition
will not issue to prohibit or restrain
the acts of executive or ministerial
officers.
Third = The petition does not
state facts sufficient to show that
the appropriation made by the last
legislature exceed the limitations
contained in Section H. Article 7
OF the constitution.
Fourth-The petition does not
state facts sufficient to show that
the states Indebtedness, authorized
Oy the last Legislature taken with
The then existing Indebtedness, cx-
ceeds the limitations contained i'll
Section /, Article 8 of the constitu
ton.
Fifth-The acts of the Legislature
lelerred to in the petition can not
De collaterally attacked in an appll-
cation for prohibition.
SlXth- The petition does not
State facts sufficient to show that
lne plaintiff is entitled to the issu-
ance of the writ of prohibition i'll
this case.
Among the other points advanc-
81 by Mr.. Bagley i'll his argument
were the following:
The Importance of this case can
not be over estimated This action
iulls to the fundamental principles
Our state government. The
plaintiff in single action attempts