Stephens v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 08 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 19302.,19302. |
| Parties | STEPHENS et al., Capitol Commission Board, v. GORDON, State Auditor. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In Banc. Original application by E. W. Stephens and others, State Capitol Commission Board, for writ of mandamus against John P. Gordon, State Auditor. Writ denied.
A. T. Dumm, of Jefferson City, for relators. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Higgs, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lewis Hord Cook, of Jefferson City, for respondent.
This is a proceeding by mandamus, instituted by the members of the "State Capitol Commission Board" for the purpose of compelling the State Auditor to audit an account for office furniture for the new capitol and issue his warrant for $32.50 in payment thereof. This is the only purchase of the kind, so far as the petition shows. Respondent entered his appearance, waived the issuance of the alternative writ, and demurred, generally, to the petition therefor. Relators thereupon moved for judgment.
Under the issues made, the sole question presented is whether the State Capitol Commission Board is empowered to purchase the furniture for the new capitol.
The title of the act is as follows:
"An act providing for building a new state capitol at the present seat of government of the state of Missouri and for acquiring other premises than those now owned by the state, for additional state capitol premises and making provision, and also appropriations out of the state treasury, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and also of an act of the General Assembly of this state entitled, `An act authorizing and directing the contracting of the liability of the state of Missouri by the issuance of its state bonds in a sum, not to exceed three and one-half million dollars, and for the sale of said bonds, to provide means for the building, furnishing and other equipment of a new state capitol at the present seat of government of the state, and for the purchase of additional state capitol premises, and also providing for the payment of said bonds and interest accruing thereon." Approved March 16, 1911. Laws 1911, p. 108.
Section 1 of the act first provides:
"That for the purpose of building a new state capitol at the present seat of government of this state, there is hereby created a board of commissioners to be styled the `State Capitol Commission Board.'"
The section then proceeds to fix the number and qualifications of the members of the board and provide the manner of their election, and continues, "Said commissioners * * * shall hold their offices until the completion of said building, unless sooner removed for cause," provides for bonds to be given by the members, for the filling of vacancies, for the general manner of conducting the business of the board, for its offices and times of meeting and for the compensation of members, and concludes, "The term of the members of the board shall end with the construction of the building proper."
Section 2 provides that:
"It shall be unlawful for any member of the board to be connected directly or indirectly in any manner with any contract or part thereof for the building of said state capitol or for any work or employment connected therewith or for the purchase or furnishing of any material or supplies therefor, or to accept any benefit therefrom, or the promise of any such benefit" in any manner, and then fixes drastic penalties for the violation of that provision and forbids the employment of any person as superintendent "of the construction of said building who is or shall become connected directly or indirectly with any contract for the building of said capitol or for the furnishing of any of the material or labor therefor."
In this section is set out the oath to be taken by members of the board, as follows:
"I ...... do solemnly swear that I am not now and shall not, directly or indirectly, become interested or concerned in any manner with any contractor or contractors, person or persons, company or corporation for the construction of the state capitol or any part or portion thereof or in the proceeds or profits arising out of the same or in any work or labor done thereon or material furnished in the construction of said building, and that I shall faithfully and impartially, according to law, perform all my duties as a member of the State Capitol Commission Board."
Section 3 provides for the purchase or condemnation of certain premises in Jefferson City, adjacent to the old capitol grounds.
Section 4 provides for the selection of "plan for a state capitol; * * * said plan to be obtained by a competitive architectural contest," and defines in part the method to be pursued in that connection. It proceeds thus:
The section then authorizes the board to confer with persons "conversant with the subject" and to visit other state capitols in order to procure information upon which to base its selection of a plan.
Section 5 authorizes the board, after adopting a plan, to enter into "a contract or contracts in writing for the construction of said capitol pursuant thereto." It authorizes the board to "contract for the construction of the entire building by a contractor, individual or corporate, who may undertake the whole work" or to make separate contracts for different classes of work, if the board deems it advisable to divide the work into classes. It requires all contracts for the construction of said building or for designated classes of the work thereof to be let to the lowest and best bidder, and provides the manner of letting bids, and requires that "all contracts for the construction of said building or classes of work thereof or for material and labor shall be in writing" and signed in a prescribed manner. It then proceeds:
"No contract or contracts shall be made or entered into by the board incurring in the aggregate an expense greater than three millions of dollars and the interest received by the state on the proceeds of the sale of bonds hereinafter referred to for the construction of said building."
Provision is then made for the cancellation of contracts in proper cases, for the retention of a per cent. from payments due on monthly estimates, and for the quality of materials used, for preference of Missouri materials and labor, the use of Missouri granite and stone, and that the plans and specifications shall be executed by skillful and reputable architects, contractors, artists, mechanics, and laborers. Bonds are required of contractors, and the preservation and filing of vouchers, contracts, files, and papers is enjoined upon the board
Section 6 prescribes the manner of appointment, qualifications, term of office, oath, bond, and duties of the secretary of the board. Only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Walker v. Big Medicine Drainage Dist., 39735.
... ... Courts can not write into a statute a provision not covered by its language. Stephens v. Gordon, 266 Mo. 206, 181 S.W. 73; Orthwein v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 261 Mo. 650, 170 S.W. 885; Sayles v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co., 344 ... ...
-
State v. Holtcamp
...whom the answer is not self-evident to such cases as Orthwein v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 261 Mo. 650, 170 S. W. 885, and E. W. Stephens et al. v. Gordon, 181 S. W. 73 (not yet officially reported). What would have been the position and probable order of the circuit court, or of this court, ......
-
Dunham Construction Co. v. City of Webster Groves
...Co., 248 Mo. 270, 154 S.W. 77. Alva C. Trueblood for appellant. (1) The courts cannot enlarge or change the scope of a statute. Stephens v. Gordon, 181 S.W. 73; Knisely v. Holtcamp, 181 S.W. 1007; 59 C.J., Sec. 569, p. 952. (2) A statute should be construed so as to ascertain and give effec......
-
Dunham Const. Co. v. City of Webster Groves
...Co., 248 Mo. 270, 154 S.W. 77. Alva C. Trueblood for appellant. (1) The courts cannot enlarge or change the scope of a statute. Stephens v. Gordon, 181 S.W. 73; Knisely Holtcamp, 181 S.W. 1007; 59 C. J., Sec. 569, p. 952. (2) A statute should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect ......