Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-01-14
The State Moy Go on With
The Issuing Of its
Bonds.
BOUNTY QUESTION NOT TESTED.
The constitutlOaality Of Sugar Bount.
les May Have to be Determined by
A Separate Suit

a writ OF prohibition against the gov
crnor, secretary OF state, attorney gen.
eral. and state treasurer, restraining
these officers from issuing the state
bonds authorized by the last leglsla-
ture AS $50, 0O0 Of this bond issue was
for the payment OF any sugar bounty
that might be earned, last year, the
case has excited much interest In this
city, where the head offices Of the Idaho
company are located. The court does
not so into the question at all on the
consttutonalIty Of sugar bounty,
but merely decides against the appllca-
ton on the technical point that 'Hrlt
OF prohibition will not lie against an
officer OF the state from performing
ministeriG! act This decision refers 70
former decision Of the court IN the
case Of Williams ys. Lewis,
Major Richard W. Young, attorney OF
the Idaho Sugar company, said today
that the sugar bounty question will
now have TO come up separately and
Will be tried on lis merits before the
court, What the next step win be has
not as yet been decided on. but as the
representative of the state OF Idaho is
daily certifying TO the correctness u
the sugar company's claims against the
state In turning out sugar, and as Ger.
tifcates will be issued the company for
the bounty earned, II Is probable that
the company win have 20 take steps to
enforce the issuance OF state warrants,
should such issuance be denied by the
state auditor, 1t Is hoped, however,
that the official win not refuse TO fol-
low the plain mandates OF the law and
that there win be no trouble In the col-
lection OF the claims.
The case decided yesterday was con-
Quoted before the supreme court by
John A. Bagley encouragement on
behalf OF the validity Of the act, Messrs.
Wood & Wilson, attorneys for other
defendants interested. and Ralph +.
Quarles attorney for the plaintiff,
Stein. The points relied upon by Mr..
Bagley were as follows:
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 ap.
pear therein.
Second-The writ Of prohibition will
not Issue 10 prohibit or restrain the
acts Of executive or ministerial Of
flcers
Thrd-The petition does not state
facts sufficient TO show that the APP
preparations made by the last leglsa-
ture exceed the limitations contained
In Section H. Article Of the consti-
tuition.
Fourth-The petition does not state
facts sufficient TO show that the states
Indebtedness, authorized by he last leg
islature taken with the then existing
indebtedness, exceeds the limitations
contained In Section /, Article OF the
constitution
Fifth--The acts OF the legislature re-
ferred to IN the petition can not be
oollaterally attacked In an application
for prohibition.
Sixth--The petition does not state
facts sufficient To- show that the plain
tin is entitled to the Issuance OF the
writ OF prohibition IN this case.
Among the other points advanced by
Mr.. Bagley in his argument were the
following.
The importance OF this case cannot be
over estimated This action runs 10 the
fundamental principles of our state
government The plaintiff I'm single
action attempts to discredlt the actions
OF the state legislature. which has met
with the approval Of the governor and
AZ the same time seeks 10 shackle the
hands Of the entire executive dpart-
ment and present state administration
by dprlving them OF the use OF the
funds authorized by the legislature for
tho erection and equipment Of the
state university. the state normal
schools, the Idaho reform school. to
aid In the erection and construction Of
needed bridges across some Of the larg-
est streams in this state to aid IN the
construction Of needed public roads into
the interior of our state, TO encourage
the raising of bcets and the manufuC-
ture OF sugar therefrom 20 improve
the state penltentiary and secure a wa
ter supply therefor 90 erect and fur
nish q supreme court building at Lew
iston and 90 publish the decisions Of the
supreme court
lie asks this court to establish pre-
codent and hold that any person alleg-
ing that he Is citizen ana a taXpay-
en-, may have an extraordinary writ is-
sued by this court setting aside the acts
of the legislature and thWArtng the
will OF the people az therein expressed
arTcstlng the official acts Of the gover-
nor and the executive department for
nm indefinite time without giving a
bond for any damage that might accrue
to the defendants, the state, or the
people.
Plaintiff asks this court TO prohibit
the people OF this state from building.
equipping ana maintaining the state
university. normal and reform schools
he asks you 10 deny the people Of this
ate the right 70 aid In the building
Of bridges Tor the public use across
large streams, or the construction of
wagonroads IN the unsettled mountain.
ous portions Of our state,
He further asks you TO deny the PEG.
pie of this state the right to aid In the
development OF our natural resources
and the encouragement Of the produc.
ton OF sugar, right which has been
claimed and enjoyed by The people OF
this nation and by almost every state
I'm the Union since its admission.
lie asks you In a collateral proceed
ing 10 declare numerous acts Of the log-
stature unconstitutional. null and void.
lie asks the highest judicial tribunal
Of this state, which stands at the head
OF coordinate department OF the
state government. TO issue "A writ OF
prohibition and Invade the realm Of
the executive department. an action
which courts from time imme-
mortal have refused 20 do.