State ex rel. Tribune v. Steen

• Citation: 236 N.W. 251,60 N.D. 627
• Decision Date: 15 April 1931
• Docket Number: No. 5866.,5866.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BISMARCK TRIBUNE v. STEEN, State Auditor.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

60 N.D. 627

236 N.W. 251

STATE ex rel.BISMARCK TRIBUNE

v.STEEN, State Auditor.

No. 5866.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

April 15, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 33, c. 179, S. L. 1927, providing that “all claims for moneys expended by the Motor Vehicle Registration Department shall be paid out of the fund set aside for that Department by the State Treasurer upon the presentation of properly prepared vouchers approved by the State Auditing Board and approved by the Registrar,” construed, and held, for reasons stated in the opinion, that the provisions thereof with respect to the approval of claims by the state auditing board and the registrar apply only to claims not within the special exception of the printing statutes, sections 72 and 74, C. L. 1913.

Syllabus by the Court.

Said section 33 further examined, and held, for reasons stated in the opinion, that it does not delegate to the state treasurer the power to make appropriations for the motor vehicle registration department, and accordingly is constitutional as against the challenge that it constitutes a delegation of legislative power to the state treasurer.

Syllabus by the Court.

Chapter 179, S. L. 1927, examined, and held, for reasons stated in the opinion, that the body of the chapter embraces but one subject, and that such subject is expressed in its title. Accordingly, it is held, that said chapter does not contravene section 61 of the Constitution of North Dakota providing that no bill shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title.

Appeal from District Court, Burleigh County; M. J. Englert, Special Judge.

Proceedings by the State, on the relation of the Bismarck Tribune, for writ of mandamus to be directed to John Steen, as State Auditor. From a judgment denying the application, relator appeals.

Affirmed.Zuger & Tillotson, of Bismarck, and Joseph J. Ermatinger, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

James Morris, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

NUESSLE, J.

The relator applied to the district court of Burleigh county for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, John Steen, as state auditor, to issue to it a warrant in payment of a claim for printing done for the motor vehicle registration department. The district court, after hearing, denied the writ. The relator appeals.

The relator holds the contract for state printing, awarded pursuant to the provisions of section 51, C. L. 1913, as amended by Laws 1921, c. 98.

In September, 1929, the registrar of motor vehicles requisitioned the printing commission for registration certificates and other supplies. Pursuant to this requisition, the printing commission ordered the supplies from the relator. The relator supplied the order, and presented the claim therefor to the printing commission. The commission allowed and approved the claim as made, and thereafter it was certified to the state auditor for payment. It was not, however, presented to, or approved by, the state auditing board. The registrar of motor vehicles received and accepted the supplies. He conceded (as did the Attorney General on argument in this court) that they were of the kind, quantity, and quality as ordered, but protested against the payment of the claim as made, setting forth as the sole reason for his protest that the rate charged for the printing was excessive. The state auditor, whose duty it is to issue warrants in payment of proper claims against the state refused to pay the claim on the ground it had not been approved by the registrar and the state auditing board, as required by section 33, chapter 179, S. L. 1927 (the Motor Vehicle Registration Act). In that behalf the state auditor contends that under the provisions of said section 33 all claims, including those for printing, payable out of moneys appropriated for the motor vehicle department, must be approved by the registrar and the state auditing board; that, in any event, though the registrar and the state auditing board were not required to pass upon and approve the claim for printing, nevertheless they were required to pass upon and approve the claim in other respects. On the other hand, the relator insists that, under the provisions of sections 72, 73, and 74, C. L. 1913, the printing commission has the exclusive power to approve claims against the state for printing, and that therefore it is entitled to the payment of the claim in the instant case thus approved. The sections of the statute more especially involved are as follows:

Section 72, C. L. 1913:

“ Commissioners Have Charge of All Printing Paid for by the State. The commissioners shall have charge of all the printing and binding required to be done for the several departments of the government; receive the proper orders for the same, and have the same properly executed according to law; keep a record of all work ordered from the several contractors under the law, and of all printing and binding ordered by the legislative assembly; examine and supervise the work of printing in progress, and see that it is executed with due economy to the state; make or authorize to be made the necessary indices for the volumes of the executive documents and reports; examine all accounts for printing and binding that may be presented, and adjust the same according to the terms of the contracts and in accordance with law and such rulings as may be determined by the commissioners. No printing required by any state officer as provided under this article shall be paid for unless the same shall have first been authorized by the legislative assembly or by the commissioners of printing.”

Section 74, C. L. 1913:

“ Printing Accounts, How Certified and Paid. When the account of any contractor under this article shall have been adjusted, the commissioners shall certify the same to the state auditor, who on receipt thereof shall draw his warrant upon the state treasurer for the amount thereof; provided, that in the current execution of such contracts the commissioners are empowered, in their discretion, to deliver to such contractor a certificate for an amount not exceeding seventy-five per cent. of completed work upon the contractor filing with the commissioners a statement of the amount of work done, for which amount the state auditor shall give his warrant upon the state treasurer to such contractor.”

Section 33, c. 179, S. L. 1927:

“All claims for moneys expended by the Motor Vehicle Registration Department shall be paid out of the fund set aside for that Department by the State Treasurer upon the presentation of properly prepared vouchers approved by the State Auditing Board and approved by the Registrar.”

The Legislature has definitely prescribed the manner and method in which state printing must be provided. It has created a commission charged with the duty of furnishing all such printing as the state may require, and prescribed the powers and duties of this commission. See article 4, c. 3, Political Code, sections 45 to 108, inclusive, C. L. 1913, as amended, and particularly sections 72, 73, 74, and 101 thereof. It has provided for the employment by the printing commission of an expert familiar with all classes of printing and other matters pertaining to the performance of the duties of the commission. See sections 56, C. L. 1913, and 375b3, Supplement. These statutes in their original form, or as amended, have been in effect since statehood. They clearly evidence a legislative intent to place the direction and supervision of the state's printing in the hands of a single commission, which shall have the assistance and advice of an expert in such matters. They likewise evidence an intent that all bills for printing done shall be passed upon and approved by the commission. On the other hand, section 375, C. L. 1913, was enacted as chapter 33, S. L. 1901. As originally enacted, this section required that all claims against the state before payment be audited and approved by the state auditing board. It is still in effect, though amended, so as to except from its provisions such claims as are “specifically excepted by law.” See section 375, Supplement. Though the Motor Vehicle Registration Act clearly contemplates that printing and printed matter will be required for the functioning of the registration department (see section 3(b) thereof), it does not necessarily follow (though it may be so argued) that...