Cañon City record., 1911-04-06
SUSTAINS MOTION TO
QUASH FORMATIONS
Judge Wi1kin Decides That the Attorney
General Has No Power to Supercede
the District Attorney.

mont county district court at 1913
this morning sustained the motion o
counsel for the defendants to quasi
the informations in the suit institutes
here by ex-Attorney General John I
Barnett on the twenty-third of las
December, charging conspiracy to de
fraud and the obtaining of money un
der false pretenses on the part o.
ex-Warden John Cleghorn, A. R. Fris.
bic, D. E. Gibson and Herman Loehr
of Canon City, and W. NJ. Gibson 81
Durango, in connection with cou-
tracts for furnishing supplies for the
state penitentiary and ordered the
papers in the case stricken from the
court files.
The opinion was based upon the
copstl uction of the statutes of Colo-
RADIO defining the powers and prerog-
atives OF the attorney general and up
on the citations presented by counsel
in the case. The opinion was a verbal
one, but exhaustive so far as the au-
thorities bearing on the question at
issue were concerned.
Attorney General Griffith asked
the court for thirty days in which 10
prepare a bill of exceptions on which
to carry the matter to the supreme
court for final adjudication, which
was granted.
Judge wilkins ruling disposes of
the case so far as the informatiohs
filed by Mr.. Barnett relate to this
court. The matter for determination
was whether the attorney genera,
mon law right to prosecute the suit
and thereby usurp the constitutional
powers and prerogatives of the legally
authorized district attorney.
Exhaustive argument was made on
behalf of the defendants Wednesday
afternoon by Clyde C. Dawson of Dem
yer and by a. II. McLain and Judge
Augustus Pease of this city Attorney
General Ben Griffith and Assistant
Attorney General a. a Lee. of Dem
yer, appeared on behalf of the state.
A great deal of careful preparation
had been made by counsel in the
case and the argument for, and
against the the motion to quash the
informations was among the most
mastery of its kind heard in the
district court in long time.
Mr.. Dawson laid down the propos.-
tion that the attorney general whose
duties are defined by statute, had no
constitutional warrant, or authority.
to come into this particular case as
prosecutor, although instructed to do
so by the governor and the general
assembly, as was true in this instance.
Up to the passage of the informations
law by the legislature in 1891, the a.
torney general of Colorado, accord
ing to Mr.. Dawson, had no legal right
to go into the lower courts Of the
state and prosecute feIonies and he
was not aware that subsequent en-
actments of the general assembly had
extended his prerogatives or power
in such cases. In learned argument
ering every phase of the matter IA
controversy Mr.. Dawson attempted II
show that the attorney general hat
no right to supercede Mr.. Locke II
the institution and conduct of thii
case; that he inherited no privilege
from the common law and derived Il.
power from the statutes.
The powers of the attorney genera
of Colorado in broad way, it wal
contended by counsel for the defend
ants, was restricted to the prosecu
ton and defense OF suits against th
state in the appellate and sdprem
courts OF the commonwealth; that hi
jurisdiction did not extend to tn
lower courts. District Attorney Lock