Show agricultural CASE decision in favor of the regular board BUILDING commission ILLEGAL efforts of the democratic legislature Leel slature un aval llna linc the warrants will bo be paid as heretofore before leaving for silt salt like yes morning where ho he will remain until friday on the bench of the ba sa premo court judge miner banded handed down a decision in the caie of W 8 S mc curnick et etal al vs auditor in 10 favor of tha the plain plaintiff tiffi and against the construction board odthe ot the agricultural college decreeing that W S mccornick nici a aa s president ol 01 the regularly appointed appoint ad board of taw deeo is entitled to ibe the warrant of being a one quarter payment of the appropriated by the lae late L lor for the maintenance maine nance of the college and nod to coni construct eruct the north wing of 0 the main building too tho legislature saddled onto the general ampro privation pria tion billa bill a committee consia consisting ting of I 1 georga george W Tu thatcher atcher J D haines and william goodwin under whose a BIOU lo 10 u the money forthe tor new building wai wag to be expended too governor in his m message esea e approving the bill said he considered the committee ill gil but rather than cauce any adlay in the work of the would approve tha entire bill when the first warrant bad came due the regular and special boar boards a claimed the right to expend the maney great confusion was caused and th the auditor refused to draw the order on the the treasurer until a legal decision bad had been ren rendered dared in use the court decided the of the construction committee to be officers their appointment by the legislature would of n according to a ruling by the tile unite 1 states at supreme court be illegal I 1 the judges decision which is as to fo lows lowly will be read with interest in the district court within and forthe tor the fourth judicial district of the tha territory of mau county of weber W 8 mccormick et at as trustees etc plain VS arthur pratt auditor et ai defel the main question in this case is i whether the members of 0 the board of 0 construction ol 01 the agricultural college of r r I 1 va a us named in the appropriation act are 6 officers e r s an office la is a especial trust or charge cr created e d 1 1 bj by competent authority hent kent give th this i tian om offices c es consist in a right and a corresponding correspond pond ng duty to to exercise a public or private 3 trust and t to 0 take emolument emoluments belonging to I 1 it 11 the duties of ot the office must be of a public or private nature and should inter interest estand and fleet the public right or interest inte reit of the state and where the employment Is by the state and the duties are public or private the petition position is an office it if not ot merely honorary certain duties will t ta connected with it the ol 01 watch I 1 will ba be tha the consideration for or its it being conferred u upon P tri divid ual who kcjr or the time will rn t be s an n 0 officer fhe the r Is distinguished 1 from rom the employee in the greater Ini importance dignity d gelty responsibility and independence of 0 his hl I 1 position in being required to take an olai I 1 oath and give all u vilt vial bond in the aliv ll iv y to be called W t account 95 16 public omer OM er for or I 1 ce or nonea anc in aud often in the tenure of 0 the petition position SEC arc requires all olli offices cers to take n oath and file the required bond under penalty penalty the in iii creating this boar board 0 con taru oloti gg mut must have intended to create the office with re ret frence rence to the above act as it imposes nion upon each member of 0 aeh such board the duty of of giving gh ing a bond in the sum auto of 0 a to be ao ad proved by the territorial ter rial auditor and aud to qualify q by T the official oath on entering upon thir 1 d duties u tes 1 each member ii Is to receive three bun bull dr drea t dollars for his hi ger services vices to ba paid upon the completion of the building warrants warran lator for are to be drawn bythe by the auditor ot of public publio account accounts upon the order ot of the chairman ot of the board if it any debt d abt could arise as to what the anten I 1 tion ol 01 the Leata lature was wai in creating the tho board and whether in d doing ding ing to so I 1 it t intended to create an office such doubt di H dispelled when 1 we ire read frontu the act itself that each member of kotruch such board shall shau qualify q by by taking the official I 1 ath before ware entering the their r duties to raqul require re the board to and t take k the official oath oaut Is 13 to fix the offic official 61 status of the bord ward it 1 tig to to require them theta to take uke the official cialI 0 oath th gortat pertaining nt n to t the h e office thus created which they h hold oad tor or a are r e about to hold and to which they are appin appointed ted that is that they will perform the duties of 0 the office to which the they have been en up appointed anted to t the best etc 0 t their er abi t an and A su r the constitution ot of the united ill ats states 5 I 1 0 o Is a term used in legally the duties of an in to take th the oath Is a term that I 1 implies walles an p ce ex exists sta which Is to be filled I 1 by th thu perdon taking tatting the oath ills plain that the du duties ties ot of this board are ire I 1 ot alti merely honorary A great public trust and duty is Impo mp oel fied upon them T they hey are aro to plan ian negotiate and expend the sum bum of for or building and the agricultural co college liege ol 01 this territory theto they do this in their official capacity as a lard board l ard ot t cons construction G the case ot of people v vs a 52 newport 4 nand and people vs state 45 illinois Il linol are readily dis able from the case at bar in many respects the dissenting opinion of custica JA lwrence Wrence in the last named named case Is supported by the gret great weight ol 01 authority ot of art this country bee sm 7 ol 01 the Oi anlo act conr conferred erred the power and authority of the appointment of such anch officers in the govermor love nor by and with too the consent 0 the Legisla legislative tJ ve assembly the object of 0 this becton of ane e dja organic nl act it as hold held by justice lawrence in a 6 similar ir case e must have been to guard the purl purity ty of the legislature ore by taking tating from tt it the PO power wet of creating lucrative or important places and be bo slowing stowing them on personal or parly ach rents and the provisions of the act should be to construed ato as to this purpose for these and other reasons and without elit entering ering into n to a more amore critical examination orthis of this ques I 1 alon toni I 1 must hold that defendant defendants demurrer r to plain tim I 1 I 1 and nd writ of mandate Is overruled an and d defend ants am s demurrer to petition in n intervention of aeo oeo thatcher That cheret et al Is sustained permission granted defendant to answer over in three days and ili deault ault plaintiff writ of mandate in iti granted an as prayed preyed payment to be made by quarter yearly Install installment meL as provided in 0 J L IMS bee see 28 as braved numerous authorities aro are here cited in the tile case of john stoker va vs cyrus rawson an order wai entered bv by consent on motion of kimball allicon Al liBon lisot prattling granting defendants thirty days ad dit di tion ionAl time to prepare and erve serve statement on motion for a new now trial |