The Mena weekly star., 1909-07-22
ND ACTION AGAINST
 STATE OFFICIALS
Decision of Supreme Court Ia Sustain ing Attorney General Norwood's Posi- tion Regarding State Contracts
 Has Far Reaching Effect.

inc opinion of the supreme cour: in inc case of J. A. Pic ,ck vs. the State, yesterday, qrashirg tue judgment of the chtncery court fuing him $50 for con- tempt in removing convicts fioG the plant of the Ark ,nsas Bric .& Manufacturing conap,ny altI the chancellor h i'd cnj )ined such action, dealt directly wllh the question of unconstitutionality oi auy action brought az ainst an agent of the state, yet there were other questions passed upon iu an indirect way which are believed by those who have read the opin- ion carefully to be decidedly of more importance than merely quashiug a $500 fine against the penitentiary superintendent.
 One statement in the opinion contains practically the gist of the argument used by Attorney General Norwood in his argu ment before the circuit court re- gently, when he was contending  that, under the constitution, a contractor with the state has ab- solutely no resource in case his contract is abrogated, except the charity. of the legislature, and that in contracting with the state the contractor .'takes the risk" of being dismissed without cause or official recourse. This argument, was prompted by the contention of the circuit judges that the COZ tract entered into in 1903 between the state and the contractors. Caldwell & Drake, is still in force and effect.
 The supreme court says that the state can not be sued, and that where it presumes 10 set aside contract or declare it at an eud (as it did when it declared tue Dickson contract at an end last January), contractor is abso- lutely without recourse except to appeal to the legislature to ''get what he may be justly entitled to-" A suit against even the agents of the state for setting this contract aside IS forbidden by the opinion of the supreme court, as being in effect suit against the state, an entity which cannot be used.
 While the opinion just deliver cd is based on the D ckinson cor. tract, its application is general, and says in effect that the settiug aside oi the contract with Calf- we'll X Drake by the leg stature is an act for which the state can not be held accountable, so is application IS readily interpreted by lawyers. In other words, it IS contended, the merits of any suit that the contractors might iusti- tute in the state courts 10 test the constitution lity of lie pdtltr on and Oldham .cts, on tho grou q that thy y have violated d con tract, b ye practically bcei set tied in dvance by tLe state ST. preme court, and settled adverse ly 10 tbe contractors.
 Just what effect this will have on the whole case and what will be the attitude of Caldwell X Drake toward any further pro- ceedure in ihe state courts, is a matter of much interest, particu larly in view of the refusal Of the state supreme court to advance the mandamus case against the state auditor and involving the $<O,000 in vouchers held by the contractors.
 That the inter rpretation of the federal courts h call iuto que : ton the contentiol that the state C institution giv, IS the comtnnn- wealth the unrestricted right to break a contract. should the case De carried 10 the federal tribunal, IS admitted by Lumber of attor- neys, wfo hold that, even if ex' pressly permitted by the state constitution, 1t could not be al lowed under the express provision oi the federal constitution against The violation of the provisions ol contract.
 flows This?
 We offer Ona uvoaraa nolar Raward fO