The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1913-07-08
GEORGE REFUSES
TO PAY $4,000
Mandamus Action Compelling Pay
ment Was Heard Before Stanton
Yesterday
"PAY THE M0NEY"-ATTY. GEN.
Torrance Contends That Recent Act
Is Unconstitutional And Advises
Contrary

Is Unconstitutional And Advises
Contrary
Acting upon the advice of county
attorney G. M. Torrance. that the
law, which provides, that where con-
tracts for judicial or county bitches
had been previously let, and where
the contract price for work exceeded
$4,000, and where more than SO per
cent of the work had been completed.
that the county should at once pay
the contractors three fourth of the
70 per cent which the contract
stated should be retained by the
county until finally finished, was I'M.
constitutional, J. L. George refused
to pay the Arpin Dredging company
the sum of $9,142.5O.
Last Saturday a writ of mandamus
was issued by Judge G. w. Stanton.
directing the auditor to nav the
amount or show cause why he had
not done so. The arguments were
made before the judge in chambers
yesterday afternoon. -"
Attorney E. M. Stanton, of Thief
River Falls represented the dredging
company upon the argument. County
Attorney Torrance appeared for the
county auditor and demurred to the
petition and writ on the ground that
the petitioners were not entitled to
|any relief.
The case arose on account Of the
passage of Chapter SGT of the laws
of 1913. The contract entered into
by the county with the dredging
company provided that, as the work
progressed, the county should pay Is
per cent of the amount of work per-
formed, as shown by preliminary es-
Inmates of the engineer in charge,
and that the remaining Is per cent
|shonld be retained by the county un-
TIL completion Of the contract.
Shortly after the passage of this
law at the last session of the Legis-
lature County Auditor George re-
quested an opinion from the County
Attorney as to it's validity. County
Attorney Torrance, rendered an OPP
inion that the law was unconstitu-
tional, because it impaired the OBJ
legations of contracts Heretofore en-
tered into by the county, and at
tempted to de prive the county of
the use of money to which it was en-
titled to retain under it's contract.
The question was later submitted
to the Attorney Generals office by
the county attorney, and two opin-
ions were rendered by that Office,
holding that the law was constltu-
tional, and that the payments should
be made. p.
The opinions of the attorney gener-
ais office related to Judicial Ditch
No. II, between Beltrami and Mar
shall counties. The amount Of
money held back by these two coun-
ties on this ditch, which the con-
tractors claimed right to have at
once paid to them, amounted to
about 100000 for each county.
Immediately after the first opin-
ion of the attorney generals Office
was rendered, Marshall county paid
its share which was about 100000.
but County Auditor George adhered
to the opinion of the county attorney
and refused payment. The attitude
of our county auditor forced the dre-
dying company to bring suit to test
the constitutionality of the law, In
court.
In demurrinf to the writ of manda-
mus County Attorney Torrance rais-
ed the points that the law was In
valid because
1. It affected ditch contracts
which had already been made, chang
ed the obligations of the county un-
der it's contracts, and impaired vest
ed rights which the county had Sc
cured under it's contracts.
2. That the act was obnoxious to
the state constitution forbidding
special legislation, in that the act
was for the benefit only Of contrac-
tors whose contracts exceeded $780,
600; that the small contractors were
not provided for, and that legisla-
ton in favor Of contractors, based
upon the amount Of their contracts,
Is plainly an arbitrary classification,
and amounts to special legislation.
Attorney Stanton, for the contrac-
tors, took the position that the state
had the right, by legislative enact
ment, to change the terms Of such
contracts; that the state, in the ex-
ercise of its police powers, had con-.
troll over such an enterprise, and
could require the county to pay for
the work at different time, or In
a different manner, than the contract
itself called for.
After hearing arguments. Judge
Stanton stated. that he would take
the case under advisement, In orr
CONTINUED on last paSs).
=