Case Name: State ex rel. Resley and others vs. Farwell, Gov., etc.; State ex rel. Martin vs. Farwell, Gov., etc.; State ex rel. Martin vs. Farwell, Gov., etc.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1852-06
Citations: 3 Pin. 393
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. Resley and others vs. Farwell, Gov., etc. State ex rel. Martin vs. Farwell, Gov., etc. State ex rel. Martin vs. Farwell, Gov., etc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pinney
Volume: 3
Pages: 393–442

Head Matter:
State ex rel. Resley and others vs. Farwell, Gov., etc. State ex rel. Martin vs. Farwell, Gov., etc. State ex rel. Martin vs. Farwell, Gov., etc.
1. Suereme Court — Jurisdiction. — The power vested in the supreme court by sec. 8, art. VII of the constitution, “ to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto and certiorari, was not conferred as an extension or enlargement of the original jurisdiction of the court, but merely to enable it to exercise the jurisdiction otherwise conferred on it, and as auxiliary thereto. It has no original jurisdiction of such writs.” Larrabee, J., dissenting. Contra, Attorney General r. Blossom. 1 Wis., 317; In re Booth, 3 id., 49; Attorney General v. Railroad Companies, 35 id., 425.
2. Fox & Wisconsin River Improvement Scrip — Executive.—Although, under sec. 1, ch. 179, Laws 1851, a former governor had entered into a contract with the contractor on the Fox & Wisconsin River Improvement, and agreed to certify and authenticate the scrip authorized to he issued hy the hoard of public works, under sec. 2, in payment of estimates, and to affix thereto the great seal of the state ¡ yet, as there was no provision of law requiring him to do so, he was not, nor was his successor, under legal obligation, by reason of such contract or otherwise, to so certify and authenticate it.
3. Same. — It seems that the state would not be liable on the scrip authorized to be issued by the board of public works under ch. 171, sec. 2, Laws of 1851, and that the issuing of such scrip is not forbidden by secs. 7 and 8, art. YIII of the constitution. But see opinion of Hubbell, J.
4. Same — Stock Certificates — State Debt. — Under secs. 5 and 6, ch. 340, laws of 1852, it was lawful for the secretary of state, under the direction of the governor, to issue stock certificates bearing interest, payable out of the moneys arising from the sale of lands granted in aid of the Fox & Wisconsin River Improvement, and pledging the revenues of said improvement, without any other pledge or liability therefor on the part of the state, for the redemption thereof; and to sell the said certificates or deliver the same in payment of any sums due or to become due to any contractor upon said improvement, as therein provided.
5. Same. — The stock certificates, issued under secs. 5 and 6 of ch. 340, Laws 1852, do not, it seems, create an indebtedness against the state forbidden by the constitution. But see opinion of Hubbelb, J.
' 6. Executive. — The question, whether the governor, in his person, is exempt from judicial control, and whether, and to what extent, his official action may be controlled or directed by the judicial power, discussed by Howe, J.; holding that the executive, in his person, is subject to judicial control as other citizens, and that, in the exercise of his executive functions, he is entirely and absolutely independent of the judicial power, in so far as his official action involves the exercise of judgment or discrelion.
(4 Chand., 104-106.)
APPLICATIONS for writs of peremptory mandamus against Leonard J. Farwell, governor. The case, made by the relators Resley, White & Arndt, was, in substance, that by act of congress of August 8, 1846, there was granted to the state of "Wisconsin, on its admission into the Union, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, and of constructing a canal to unite said rivers at or near the Portage, a quantity of land equal to one-half of three sections in width, on each side of. the said Fox river and the lakes through which it passes, from its mouth to the point where the Portage canal shall enter the same, and on each side of the said canal, from one stream to the other, reserving the alternate sections to the United States, to be selected under the direction of the governor of said state, and such selection to be approved by the president of the United States. * * * That as soon as the territory of Wisconsin should be admitted as a state into the Union, all the lands so granted should become the property of said state for the uses and purposes contemplated in such act, and no other: provided, the legislature of the state should agree to accept such grant upon the terms specified in the act; and should have power to fix the price at which such lands should be sold, not less than one dollar and twenty-five cents the acre, and to adopt such kind and plan of improvement on said route as the said legislature should from time to time determine for the best interest of the state: provided, also, that the lands thereby granted should not be conveyed or disposed of by said state except as said improvement should progress — that is, the state might sell so much of said lands as would produce the sum of $20,000, and then the sales should cease until the governor should certify the fact to the president that.one-half of that sum had been expended on said improvements, when the state might sell and dispose of a quantity of such lands sufficient to reimburse the amount expended, and thus the sales were to progress as the proceeds thereof' should be expended; that- the improvement should be com menced within three years after the admission of the state into the Union, and be completed within twenty years, or the United States should be entitled to receive the amount for which any of said lands had been sold by the state.
By the provisions of sec. 10, art. VI of the constitution of Wisconsin, it was declared that the state should “ never contract any debt for works of internal improvements, or be a party in carrying on such works; but whenever grants of land or other property shall have been made to the state, especially dedicated by the grant to particular works of internal improvement, the state may carry on such particular works, and shall devote thereto the avails of such grants, and may pledge or appropriate the earnings derived from such worlcs in aid of their completion.”
After the admission of Wisconsin into the union, its legislature by act (Laws 1848, p. 16) gave the assent of the state to the said act of congress of August 8, 1846.
The same legislature passed an act (Laws 1848, p. 58), entitled “ an act to provide for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, and connecting the same by a canal,” by which the construction of the improvements and the superintendence and repair thereof was placed under the direction and control of a “ board of public works,” who were authorized to appoint a superintendent and engineer. This act among other things provided that, after the construction of the canal between the two rivers, the net proceeds of one-sixth of the sale of the grant of land should be set apart for the improvement of the Wisconsin river, and five-sixths thereof to the improvement of the Fox river; that the works should be divided into sections, each of which should be let separately to the lowest bidder ; that the aggregate amount of contracts at any time let by the board should not exceed the available means derivable from the sale of the lands granted in aid of such improvements, and that the governor should transmit monthly to the president of the United States a statement of the amount expended in the construction of such improvements during the preceding month; and also established a state land office for the sale of the lands under certain regulations therein prescribed, and the governor was invested with the general control and supervision of the whole work; and it was made the duty of the superintendent to superintend the work of each contractor and to see that it was done according to contract, and once in each month to estimate the work done under each contract and to report the same to the secretary of the board who was to draw his warrant on the treasury of the board for seventy-five per cent, of the amount.
On the 11th of May, 1850, Be-sley, White & Arndt, relators in the cause first above entitled, entered into a contract with the board of public works to construct and finish the dam, lock and section of canal at Cedar Rapids on Fox river, and to do certain other work in and about the same, which the chief engineer having charge of the work should determine.to be necessary, in order to complete it; that it was agreed by said board that whenever funds should be realized from the sale of lands granted as aforesaid, monthly estimates should be paid to them equal to seventy-five per cent, of the value of the work done ; that on the 1st of November, 1851, a monthly estimate was made by the superintendent, and that the amount then due them, after deducting twenty-five per cent, and payments previously made, was $3,444.49, which amount was audited and allowed to them by said board of public works, and a proper certificate or voucher, as required by law, was given to them to that effect. By ch. 164, Laws of 1852, the treasurer of the state land office was authorized to pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum on all warrants issued in conformity to a resolution of the board of public works, adopted May 9, 1851. By another act of the legislature (Laws 1852, ch. 340), further provision was made for the sale of said lands, and it was provided that the moneys arising from such sales and payable into the state treasury (except so much as was required for certain specified sections of said work) should be set apart as a separate and distinct fund for tbe purpose of paying interest on and redeeming the stock certificates provided for in the act (hereinbefore mentioned), and should be applied from time to time upon the warrant of tbe governor to tbe payment of interest on said certificates, and for their redemption when due and redeemable, and the said fund was to be and remain inviolably pledged and appropriated for such purposes, until such certificates were fully paid. This act further provided that “ the secretary of state, under the direction of the governor shall cause stock certificates to be prepared of such denominations, payable at such place and at such limited periods, not exceeding ten years from the date thereof, as he may deem expedient, and bearing interest at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum, payable on the first day of January in each year, to be in the following or equivalent form :
. “ State of Wisconsin, “Improvement Fund Certificate,
“ State Department,
“Madison, -, 18 — .
“ This certificate entitles - or assigns to receive-dollars on the-day of -, 18 — , and interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum on the 1st day of January in each year, until the time when the principal sum will be payable at-; and for the redemption thereof and for the payment of interest thereon, the moneys arising from the sales of land granted by congress to the state of Wisconsin in aid of the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers and to connect the same by a canal in said state, and tbe revenues of said improvement are pledged and appropriated in and by an act of the legislature of said state, entitled “ An act to provide for the completion of the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers,” approved April —, 1852, without any other pledge or liability on the part of the state.
“In testimony whereof, the secretary of state, in conform it with the provisions oí said act has hereunto set his hand and affixed the great seal of the state.
[SBAXj.] “ Done at Madison, this-day of-, 18 — .”
That such stock certificates should be signed by the secretary of state and countersigned by any transfer agent who might be appointed by the governor to negotiate the same, and the governor was by this act authorized to sell the said stock certificates or to deliver the same in payment of any sums due or to become due to anjr contractor upon said improvements, upon the proper voucher from the board of public works showing the amount so due; that no certificate should be disposed of at less than its par value, and the whole amount of such certificates-to be issued under the act should not exceed the sum of $200,000; and in the application of the moneys to be received on sales of said certificates, preference should be given to contractors according to the date of their several contracts.
The relators averred that it became the duty of the governor to direct the secretary of state to cause stock certificates to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this act, and to sell the same and to apply the proceeds to the payment of all sums due or to become due to contractors on said improvements according to the priority of their respective contracts, or to deliver the same at their par value in payment of any sum then due or to •become due to them, upon proper vouchers of the board of public works showing the amount so due; that the relators, Resley, White & Arndt, had presented to Gov. Far-well their said certificate and voucher from the board of public works of the amount so due them, and demanded that he should pay them the amount thereof according to the provisions of said act, or that he should deliver to them stock certificates, as provided by the act, to the amount of said voucher so received from said board of public works; that the governor stated that he had no money for the purpose of paying the claim, and that he would not deliver any stock certificates to them in payment of the sum due them, nor for any sum due or to become due to them under the contract; that the governor refused to direct the secretary of state to cause such stock certificates to be prepared as required by the act, and that he refused to sell such certificates for the purpose of raising money with which to pay the relators.
Resley, White & Arndt thereupon applied to the supreme court for a peremptory writ of mandamus to be issued, commanding the respondent, Gov. Farwell, to direct the secretary of state to cause stock certificates to be issued according to the provisions of said act; and that be sell the same and apply the money received therefor in payment of the sum due them, or that be deliver the same to them at their par value in payment thereof.
MARTIN’S CASES.
The last two cases were applications for writs of peremptory mandamus against Gov. Farwell by Morgan L. Martin, both predicated upon the same indebtedness arising upon a contract entered into by Gov. Dewey witb said Martin, under eh. 179, Laws 1851, by which the governor was authorized to accept a proposition made to him January 31, 1851, by said Martin, for completion of the improvement of Eox river between Green Bay and Lake Winnebago, and to enter into contract with the said Martin according to the terms and conditions thereof, provided he gave security, etc. This act provided that the work should be paid for upon monthly estimates made by the superintendent or engineer, in the same manner as the work under previous contracts had been estimated and paid for, if there should be funds in the hands of the treasurer applicable thereto, and if not, the board of public works should give him scrip signed by the president of said board and attested by their clerk, for the amount due on such estimates, which scrip was to constitute a debt against said improvement, for the payment of which and interest thereon at twelve per cent., payable annually, on the first day of January in each year, the said improvement should stand pledged, and the said board should levy tolls upon all tonnage passing through or along the improvement, sufficient to pay the interest that might accrue and until the debt was paid; that on the 14th day of May, 1851, a contract was entered into between the said Martin on the one part, and the state of Wisconsin by the Governor of the other part, for doing said work according to said proposition. The provisions of the contract as to payment were, that estimates were to be made as provided for in the case of Resley et ah, and that it was “ further agreed on the part of the state of Wisconsin, that monthly estimates will be paid to said contractor by the said board of public works equal in amount to seventy-five per cent, of the value of the work done, etc., and whenever funds shall be realized from the sales of land granted in aid of said improvement, the said monthly and final estimates shall be paid in coin, and in case there shall be no funds on hand applicable to that object, scrip shall be issued in conformity with the act authorizing the governor to accept the proposition of said Martin, which said scrip shall be payable in such amounts, and the interest thereon payable at such place, as the said contractor may desire.”
* * “ Said scrip shall be engraved with such devices thereon as may be deemed by the contracting parties necessary to prevent counterfeits, and shall be in the following or equiv-lent form:
“State of WISCONSIN,
“ Office of the Board ■ of Public Worhs,
“ No. —. Oshkosh, :-, 185-.
“$-. It is hereby certified by the Board of Public Works of the State of Wisconsin that there is due to Morgan L. Martin, or order,-dollars, under his contract with the state for the improvement of the Fox river, payable out of the avails of the grant of land in aid of the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers and the'revenues thereof.
“President of the Board of Public Worles. ” “Attest: -- -, Clerk.’
“ Executive Office, Madison,-, 185-
111,-, governor of the state of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the foregoing scrip, for-dollars, to Morgan L. Martin, is issued in conformity with an act of the legislature of said state, entitled “ an act authorizing the governor to enter into contract with Morgan L. Martin, for the improvement of the Eox river between Lake Winnebago and Green Bay,” approved March 11, 1851, and is payable out of the avails of the grant of land in aid of the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers and the revenues thereof, and is redeemable at the pleasure of the state; that the scrip bears interest at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum, payable annually on the first day of January, at-, (deducting the current rate of exchange at Milwaukee), and that for the redemption of the said scrip and the payment of the interest to become due thereon, the improvement of the Eox and Wisconsin rivers, and the revenues to be derived therefrom, stand pledged by the state.
“ In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the state. Done at Madison, this-day of-, 185-
“ By the governor, -,
“ Secretary of Slate."
Martin gave the required security and entered upon the performance of his contract, and there became due to him on estimates of work performed, the sum of upwards of five thousand dollars. There were no funds in the hands of the treasurer applicable to the payment of this sum, and the Board of Public Works issued scrip to him in the form prescribed, to the amount of $5,000; which he presented to the' respondent and demanded that it should be certified to and authenticated by him, as governor, and that the great seal of the state should be affixed thereto, in pursuance of said agreement; that the' respondent refused to comply with this request, and he applied for a mandamus to compel Governor Farwell to cer tify to said scrip, and all scrip issued by the board of public works, pursuant to the said contract, and to affix the great seal of the state thereto.
The second application, on behalf of Martin, and the third case mentioned, was brought under ch. 340, Laws 1852, for a peremptory mandamus commanding the respondent to fully comply with and execute that act, by directing the secretary of state to cause stock certificates to be prepared in accordance with the terms of said act, and that he sell the same and from the moneys received therefor pay the said Martin the said sum of five thousand dollars due him as stated in his first application, or that he deliver said stock certificates at their par value to him in payment thereof. This application set forth in general terms the contract between said Martin and the state, but without any reference to the provisions therein for issuing scrip to him, and in substance made the same case as was presented by the application of Resley et al., supra; he, Martin, by his first application above stated, seeking to compel the mode of payment as specified in the act of 1851, ch. 179, and the contract between him and the state, and in the other, to obtain payment pursuant to the provisions of the act of 1852, ch. 340.
These several applications came before the court upon rules granted in vacation by the judge of the fourth circuit, requiring the respondent to show cause, etc., why the several peremptory writs so applied for should not issue.
In response to the rule in the case of Resley et al, and the rule in the second case of Martin, to compel the issuing of stock certificates under ch. 340, Laws 1852, the respondent by protestation not submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court, stated that all the acts and omissions complained of were done, committed or suffered by him in his official capa1-city as governor, and objected that the court had no jurisdiction by mandamus to enforce the performance of any of his executive duties ; that by the constitution and laws a circuit judge in vacation had no power or authority to award a rule to show cause before tbe supreme court why a mandamus should not issue; that inasmuch as in the discharge of his official duties in relation to the matters mentioned in the applications certain questions of great importance to the state had arisen, depending upon tbe proper construction to be given to certain clauses of the constitution and the legislation in question, and being willing and desirous of being advised by the highest legal tribunal of the state, be respectfully submitted to the court for their opinion and advice by way of answer in the nature of a demurrer, for the purpose of obtaining that opinion; that the allegations of fact were true, except as afterwards traversed, but he denied that they were sufficient in law to authorize the issuing of a mandamus; that when he was applied to in the premises there was an outstanding indebtedness against the improvement fund (so called) of one hundred thousand dollars over and above the avails of the sales of the lands granted to aid it and all its revenue, bearing an interest of twelve per cent.; that the entire revenue from tolls in 1851 was only $70 ; that its revenues would for many years be insufficient to pay the interest; the land sales amounted to only about $1,000 per month, and a large proportion of the best lands had been already sold ; that a large proportion of those remaining are unsalable; and that by no estimate of the annual sales to be made, would there be realized a sum of money which would not be very much exhausted in meeting the annual interest upon the existing indebtedness against the improvement fund; that as governor of the state it was not his duty, nor by the act of congress, the constitution and laws of the state, was he authorized to direct tbe secretary of state to cause stock certificates to be prepared and issued as required by the relators.
First. Because the said stock certificates would constitute a debt against the state, unauthorized by the constitution.
/Second. To do so would be in contravention of the act of congress making the grant, and the constitution of the state, inas much as the certificates would constitute a funding system, which by anticipating the avails of the trust fund, would necessarily exhaust the same in the payment of interest.
Third. The said certificates are not to be issued for any debt authorized by the sixth and seventh sections of the eighth article of the constitution of the state.
Fourth. Because the provisions of the acts mentioned in the application have been substantially repealed or modified by a subsequent act. Oh. 464, Laws 1852.
Fifth. Because the acts required to be done, necessarily involve executive discretion, and therefore a mandamus cannot be granted.
The answer to the application of Martin for a mandamus to compel the respondent to sign and certify the scrip issued by the board of public works, and to affix the great seal of the state thereto, was in substance the same as to the other applications, and in relation to the scrip stated that it was headed :
“UNITED States op America, State op Wisconsin — Twelve Per Cent. Stock,” and was accompanied by coupons in the ordinary form, to be signed by him as governor of the state, and in form and to the effect following :
“State op Wisconsin' — Pay to-or bearer, the sum of-dollars, being the interest to become due upon state scrip No.-, on the-day of-, 18 — .
“ Governor of Wisconsin
Further, that it was not his duty to certify, authenticate, or issue such scrip as required by the said Martin, for the reason that the contract with said Martin and the said scrip would constitute a debt against the state unauthorized by the constitution, that such scrip purports to pledge not only the revenue of the improvement but the improvement itself, and not only on the lower Fox river, but the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, and is not authorized by the constitution or the act of 1851; that tbe act of 1851 neither makes it the duty of the governor to make any such certificate, or to contract to make any such scrip or certificate ; that the journals of both houses show that the act of 1851 was not passed by a vote of yeas and nays as required by the constitution.
It is to be regretted that the briefs of counsel cannot be found and hence it is impossible to present the points made or an abstract of the arguments.
Geo. B. Smith and S. Crawford, for relators.
J. B. Doolittle, for respondents.
See also, Attorney General r. Eau Glaire, January Term, 1875; State ex rel. Attorney General et al. v. Baker, August Term, 1875, in which the original jurisdiction of the court is further considered and expounded.

Opinion:
It will be seen from the opinions which follow, that the court decided that it had not original jurisdiction of these applications, yet in response to the request of the respondent for an advisory opinion, the following statement of the opinion of the court on the merits, was prepared and filed by Chief Justice WhitoN.
" 1. The court are of opinion that the governor is not required to authenticate the scrip issued under the act of 1851.
" 2. But the court see no valid legal objection to the issuing of the stock certificates as provided for in the fifth section of the act, entitled " an act to provide for the completion of the improvement of the Eox and Wisconsin rivers," passed on the 14th day of April, 1852, nor to the delivery of them in payment to contractors, as provided in the sixth section of said act."
Subsequently in the case of State ex rel. Martin v. Farvxll, in relation to certification of the scrip issued by the board of public works under the act of 1851, the following opinion of the court was given:
How®, J.
On the 31st of January, 1851, the relator submitted to the legislature a proposition to do a certain work in the improvement of the Eox river, at prices therein specified, and upon certain terms of payment.
On tbe 4th of March following, the legislature passed an act authorizing the governor to accept said proposition, and to entei into a contract with the relator upon the terms thereof, and providing further that for work done under such contract, in case there should be a deficiency of funds to pay for the same, "the board of public works should give to said contractor scrip, signed by the president of said board and attested by their clerk, for the amount due " upon each monthly estimate.
Upon the 14th of May, 1851, the then governor of Wisconsin entered into contract with the relator, as authorized by said act, in which it was agreed, not only that in case of a deficiency of funds to pay any monthly estimate, the board of works should give to the contractor such scrip as was specified in the act, but that the governor should affix thereto a certificate, under the great seal of the state, and in a certain form prescribed in the contract.
The case shows that the respondent, the present governor, has refused to perform that part of the contract, and the relator prays that he may be compelled to do so by the mandate of this court.
This application must be denied for the following reasons :
1. Because, as we have already decided, in the case of the State ex rel. Resley et al. v. Leonard J. Farwell, the supreme court has not original jurisdiction of these causes ; and 2. Because, upon the case presented, we are all of opinion that the relator is not entitled to the relief he seeks.
Of the many objections urged against the claim of the relator, the court has considered only the following, which is considered conclusive upon the right asserted. The certificate which the relator demands either confers upon him some new right, not given by the scrip to which it is attached, or it does not. If it does confer a new right, we are all satisfied that the governor had no authority to contract for it, because the law under which he acted only provided for giving the scrip, without any mention of the certificate. If it does not, this court will not command that to be done which confers no legal right.
When the relator obtained his scrip from the board of public works, he obtained all that the legislature authorized to be given him. And although the governor might, perhaps, add such a certificate as is now demanded with great propriety, yet he could not, by contract, bind his successors in office to do so.