Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-04-06
Speculation Regarding His Fail.
ure to Secure Appointment
as Public Printer
IOWA COURT CASE PREVENTED
Decision Of Supreme Court in Matter
: Of overcharses for State Work Be-
,isvsd to Have Halted Presidents
Action - Prospects Are That Pond
ina Suit Will Be Settled.
Special to mes-Republican.

Special to Times Republican.
Des Moines, April 6.-Did the decls-
ion of the Iowa supreme court IN re-
yersing the LATE Young case deteat
Mr.. Young for appointment as pubic
printer by President Roosevelt? MI.
yonnr has made a number of trips to
Washington of late and now comes
dispatch from Washington that he was
a candidate for appointment to the
position of publ, printer which Sat
urday was given to an Illinois man.
Mr.. Young has been heralded over
the state of Iowa for eight years as
the especial friend of President
Roosevelt. He said in his paper not
many weeks ago that If he had asked
for an appointment of the president
ne might" have secured it. Whaie
Mr., Young was state binder OF Iowa
he received a large amount OF money
for the work he did and following ms
leaving the office a suit was started
by the state to make him pay back
some Of the money on the ground that
he charged more than the law per-
mtts. In the district court here he won
and last May the supreme court re-
yersed this. Since then 1t has been
in abeyance. The procedendo has been
issued and the case is again subject TO
trial in the Polk district court. Moth
ing has been done and 1t is understood
that a settlement of the case Is pend
ing, Mr.. Young having offered to pay
part OF the money back.
The supreme court decision in the
matter was very plain. Mr. Young's
defense was simply that even If he did
overcharge the state, that since the
money was paid him by a state official
the state could not recover. The SUI
preme court decision is quite lengthy
but the main point ON which the court
reversed the case was that the state
Could recover On this 1t said:
"Our conclusion rests on the gen.
eral principle that the public is not
bound by the acts of its officers, when
outside or beyond the scope of their
authority. The public law OF which
courts and individuals are bound to
take notice, and of which no party
can claim ignorance, is the source OF
the power of the secretary of state,
as we'll as every other official, defin-
Ing such power with clearness and GER
tafnty. 1t does. not clothe him with
authority to create any new claim, or
10 amend statutes or to increase the
conversation of any other officer with
whom his duties are connected; and
ia support the bills he has certified IN
behalf of the state binder, resort must
be had not to his act in certifying.
but TO the statutes fixing the compen-
sation to which the latter official is
entitled If payments have been made
owing to his certificate computing
compensation at higher rates than
those fixed by law, these to the extent
Of the excess cannot be regarded as
voluntary. The money, but not the
little thereto, has been transferred. and
restitution may be enforced in an ap-
propriate action. Any other rule, es-
pecially one which would countenance
the contention of appellee, that pub
lie officer who has received money
from the public treasury from anoth-
err public officer without warrant of
law, may OpVloIO ASSSoN eNSASAA "
owner. the public, or the pretext that
duty to the public, would encourage
the paying officer raisconceived his
official corruption by solution, and be
opposed to sound public policy. The
secretary of state was authorized to
compute the amount owing to the state
binder from an examination of the
work done; that is, the number of re-
ports bound and the number of sheets
in each report. 1t does not appear that
any mistake was made in so doing.
The bills were correct in every respect
save that an amount in excess OF that
authorized by law was charged for
binding each report, and was certified
to be due the binder by the secretary
Of state. The case is analogous with
those in which a salary or item of
fees in excess of those allowed have
been paid The statute. having fixed
the compensation, by fair implication
prohibited anything in excess of that
allowed. Both the state binder and
secretary Of state are conclusively
presumed to have known the law, and,
therefore, the former was not entitled
to such an excess, and that it was be-
ing extracted from the public treasury
in violation Of the law. The rectitude
of intention on the part of these Off
GERS. to which our attention has been
directed, can make no difference"