The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-07-19
CASE
ARGUED TODAY,
DECISION HELD

5 Presiding Justice sweetland today heard
arguments on the petition OF II. c. Car
ter for a writ OF msndamus against At
torney General Greenough.
Mr. Carter seeks TO have the states
prosecutor forced to sign bill In equity
against Charles Alexander OF harrington.
Nathaniel B. Church Of Tiverton and J.
Herbert shedd OF Providence. commits
sioners on the new bridge at Tiverton
over the sakonet river. and O. Perry
earie. the engineer.
II is sought TO have certain work being
done by the Boston Bridge company en-
Joined because the commissioners violated
the provisions OF the act creating the
commission, that all work amounting TO
$500 should be let under contract and that
bids should be advertised for when the
work TO be done exceeded 1900.
Augustus Smith had a contract for
building the steel superstructure OF the
bridge. The engineer claimed the work
was not done according 10 the contract.
Mr. Smith was evicted from the Job
The commissioners then had confer
ence with the Boston Bridge company
and let II have the work without advertis-
ing for bids.
Mr. Carter claims that the commission
ers had no power TO do this and that the
letting OF the work on the bridge amount
Ing 10 over Loo was I'm direct violation
OF the law.
The commissioners claim that the work
as being finished under the same contract
ae Mr. Smith made.
Counsel for Mr. Carter today road IN
court part OF letter from the Boston
Bridge company. offering to build the
steel structure for the state.
Walter r. Vincent, who appeared IS
counsel for Mr. Carter. is also counsel
FOR Mr.. Smith in litigation pending in
the United States court.
Mr.. Vincent argued that the law i'm
regard 10 the contract and the adver-
tisinR was clear. that there was no
question that II had been violated and
that IL was clearly the duty OF the at
torney general TO sign he bill, as asked
by Mr. Carer.
Mr.. vincen further argued that the
court should grant the relief asked for
because there was no other way TO
prevent the law being overridden.
Attorney General Greenough made
an extended argument. claiming that
he was an executive officer OF the state.
and II he abused the discretion reposed
court but 10 the people.
Mr.. Greenup took up the duties OF
the attorney general at common law
and az added TO by statutes showing
that. according TO the decision. the
attorney general had discretion power
in nearly every case that might come
under his charge.
II was then argued that tax
payer could have no direct interest
in the matter OF the committees do
1nRs. as the general assembly had alb
solute control over the money OF tax
payers, that the state could not be
sued for the money due q nthe work,
and that the Boston Bridge company
was only carrying out the original
contract Of Mr. Smith.
II might be possible. the attorney
general said. that the people would
elect a general assembly that would
not pay the bill Incurred by the COM
mission
II IL came 10 question ~ whether tho
attorney general had grossly abused his
trust, Mr.. Greenough said he could intro
duoe testimony 10 Justify his course under
the peculiar circumstances Of this case.
If ne had no discretion, then he would
have 20 sign every bill brought 10 him,
and perhaps many bills involving the
same point
Mr. Greenough also called attention 20
The fact that In the case brought in the
United states court by Mr.. Smith agains'
the commissioners he had 20 act as
counsel for the commission. A nrolimin-
AIRY injunction had been denied by Judge
Brown OF that court
Mr. Vincent said the case In the other
court had nothing 10 do with the present
one This was a case Of the refusal of the
attorney Renrai ~ act whore he law had
been clearly violated. The people of the
vtate had spoken through the genral az
Uembiy
Presiding Justice sweetland asked many
questions concerning Mr. vincents idea
OF the attorney generals having discre-
eonary power. and as 20 the determining
factor on the attorney generals part he.
lng the interest of tho state.
Mr.. Vincent declared that the state had
by the act creating the commissioner fixed
1ts interest and IL was 10 be presumed
that violation OF an act ~ TIE general
assembly was against the interest ~ th'
state
Tns court TOOK ths ps-srs and a deci.
90 Vii be handea cSuS soon.