American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1915-01-14
IDAHO PRISON CONTROL.

IDAHO PRISON CONTROL.
What appears to be a reasonable
construction is that the constitution
of his state specifically placed the
control of the penitentiary in the
hands of a board composed of the
governor, the attorney general and
the secretary of state. With reference
to most other institutions, control
seems to be vested in the legislature
through executive action, such as the
appointment of boards by the COVER
, nor to conduct the affairs of insane
asylums, etc.
A question has been raised, how
ever, as to whether there is a conflict
or not between the section of the con-
stitution giving the governor power
to investigate "any executive Office or
state institution" and the section
which gives specific power to the state
prison commissioners composed of the
officers named. This authority is given
in section 5 of article 10:
The governor, secretary of
state and attorney general shall
constitute a board to be known
as the state prison commissioners
and shall have the control, direc-
ton and management of the PEN
itentiaries of the state.
The other section is 8 of article 4,
which says:
The governor nay = = + appoint
a committee to investigate and re-
port to him upon the condition of
any executive Office or state in
stitution.
1t was under this section s of article
A tina the governor sent Mr.. Ramstedt
to the penitentiary to make some eX-
aminations and it. was under section 5
of article 10 that the prison commits
sioners reserved this authority for
themselves,
This latter section has been con-
strued by the supreme court, which
stated in effect that even the legisla-
ture had no direct control over the Of
fees of the penitentiary in view of
that provision in the constitution, al
though, of course, there has never
been any question raised as to the leg
islature's privilege 20 make any in
quiry.
The objection raised by the prison
commissioners to the governors APP
parent assumption of authority was
evidently intended merely to prevent
the establishment of any precedent
that might be set up as against the
boards constitutional rights, II not
because there was any objection to the
prison accounts being audited.
The prison warden has, as a matter
of fact, always invited investigation of
his books at any time.
In view of the position which this
controversy places the warden, it is
only fair to him that an immediate
audit of his books be- made in compli-
ance with his request.
In connection with this subject it is
noted that an attempt Is made by
the governor, editorially, to establish
his right to order the warden OF the
penitentiary about irrespective of the
board, on the ground that a grand
jury, for instance, would have a legal
right to institute an inquiry i%ndepen-
dent of the prison board. This argu-
ment, if it may be so styled, fails to
distinguish between control of an in
stitution by the constitutional, legisla-
tive or executive authority and the op-
Siatioh vi court processes IN CIVIL or
criminal cases.
A governor is in control of his W
office, but the court may always inves-
tgate it. A board, not the governor.
is constitutionally in control of the
~penitentiary, as the constitution has
been interpreted. but the court may
always investigate II.
II the governor wants to do so. he
must do it not as governor, but as a
member of the board-and there is
no question but that the board at any
time, on his request, will institute an
inquiry. as 1t offered to do the other
day. So far the governor has not made
such request Of the board.
There is no necessity for any seri-
Gus controversy over this matter and
IT certainly is not desirable that the
penitentiary be made a political foot
ball.
The whole thing can be disposed of
by sending some competent man to
the penitentiary to go over the ac-
counts and make a report on them
Boise Statesman.