Fergus County Democrat. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-1919, 1906-12-18
Attorney General SuStdinS County
Attorney Ayers in Strong
Opinion.
NO RIGHT TO LET the CONTRACT.
Board of County Commissioners Ex-
Ceeded Their Authority In
So Doing.

| There have been many enquiries at
| the Democrat office and the office OF
County Attorney Ayers as to the exact
wording of the decision relating to the
| letting Of the printing contract, by At
| torney General Galen.
| Inasmuch as the opinion is one which
| is likely to have widespread effect in
| Montana, we herewith give the opinion
| in full.
| Helena, Montana, December 10, 1906
| Hon. Roy E. Ayers, County Attorney,
| Lewistown, Montana, Dear Sir:
Your letter Of the 5th inst. supple
menting your request over the tele-
phone for an opinion upon the follow
| ing question, received.
| Can a retiring board of county COM
| missioners enter into a contract of
| agreement or contract on the eve of
their going out Of office, for two years
county printing, and thus bind the
hands of the incoming board?'
In our conversation with you over
the telephone. we intimated that such
contract might be entered into, but,
before giving an opinion, wished to
thoroughly investigate the matter ana
requested you to submit the question in
writing, as stated above
We have made careful investiga-
ton of the authorities upon this ques
port the general rule, which is stated
by Cye. Vol. H. p $50 as follows.
THE general rule is that contracts
extending beyond the term of the exist
ing board and the employment of
agents or servants of county for such
period, thus tying the hands of the
latter of their proper powers, are void
as contrary to public policy, at least
in the absence of a showing of nee
essity of good faith and public interest"
There is certainly no necessity for
making contracts with county printers
for any great length Of time. They
stand upon altogether different basis
than contract for the erection of a
public building which might be entered
into by the old board and from the
nature of the work, could not be COM
pleted before the expiration of the
term of such board
Under section 4233 of the Political
Code, which provides for the letting of
contracts for the county printing, the
work is practically all piece work and
ordered as needed by the county. and
there is no necessity whatever for en-
tering, into long contracts extending be-
yond the period of the term of the re-
tiring board.
The Supreme Court of Kansas. in
Robson VS.. Smith. 80 Pac P. 80 in dis
cussing the question you submit, used
the following language:
1T is matter of general publicity |
that in the election of county commits
sioner the selection of the official news
paper of the county enters more or
less into the contest. The views of the
candidates for commissioners as to
what newspaper shall be designated the
official paper of the county often de-
termines the result. When thhe result
of the election is legally declared. the
will of the majority ought to be
promptly and cheerfully acquiesed in.
1t does not seem fair or just for the
Old board. just as it it going out of Of
flee, to forestall the new board in the
designation of the official newspaper
of the county. There are no good
reasons why the old board should be
permitted to tie the hands of the new
board in such a matter. and there are
manifold and manifest reasons why
they should not have that power The
same reasons for limiting contracts for
general county expenditures do not
exist as in designating the official
paper of the county,
To the same effect see also:
Jay County VS.. Tavlor, 2s N. E. 752;
NndD: State VS.. Platner, 23 Ia. 140;
Bacheron VS.. New York. 50 N. Y. Sup,
COS: Franklin County VS.. Ranck. Ohio
CT. 201.