to quarters in the old capitol; that question further work on the second floor not in ac not being here involved.

Sustained.

"Notice to Bidders on Old Capitol Work. Bids on the restoration of the old state capitol 1917. Bids must be in the hands of the underwill be opened by the commission February 23, signed before that date.

"[Signed] A. S. Coody, Secretary."

cord with the plans and drawings shown by exhibit A to the bill, and prayed for a temporary and perpetual injunction. The anETHRIDGE, J. (dissenting). I do not swer denied that the commission adopted believe the motion to dismiss should be sus- the plans and specifications set forth in the tained. I do not think that the Capitol Com- Attorney General's bill, but contended that mission, by any act it may have done after they adopted another set of plans and specithe institution of the litigation by the At-fications made exhibit to the answer under torney General, could preclude, by such act, which they claim the contract was let, and the state from maintaining its bill. The bill by which the second floor of the old capitol alleges that the architect and the Capitol was cut into offices other than for the DeCommission had approved a certain plan and partment of Archives and History. It apspecification for the restoration of the old pears from the record as a whole that no capitol, approved August 21, 1916, under plans and no specifications were ever adoptwhich plan the Department of Archives and ed by any formal order entered upon the History was to have been located upon the minutes of the board. It appears from the second floor of the old capitol, and that testimony of the architect that he had drawn this was done by the commission in rec- quite a number of different plans and specifiognition of the intention of the Legisla- cations for the work, and sent them to the ture to have the Department of Archives Capitol Commission, but it seems that none and History located in the old capitol of them were ever formally adopted, and which was being preserved, partially for no order was entered upon the minutes. The historical purposes, and that the contract notice to bidders, made exhibit B to the Atfor the work involved in this suit was let torney General's bill reads as follows: upon the plans and specifications made exhibit to the Attorney General's bill. It is also alleged that the contractor and two of the commissioners were proceeding not in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted, but according to a different set of plans and specifications, and were doing the work in an entirely different manner in the way of arrangement of space, partitions, windows, wiring, etc., and in utter disregard of the plans adopted by the commission and in violation of the contract, and also in violation of the letter and spirit of chapter 112, Laws of 1916, and that the plans of the Legislature cannot be carried out under the plans under which the work was being done. He alleged that the suit was brought on the relation of two of the four members of the Capitol Commission, and alleged that the other two members and the architect were directing the said contractor to do the restoration work of the second floor not according to plans adopted by the commission, and upon which the contract was let, but In utter disregard of an order of the Capitol Commission passed on the 20th day of April, 1917, in which the said contractor was notified to do no further work on partitions on the second floor of the building until further notice, and alleged that the contractor and the architect were notified of the action of the commission, and that they were notifed that, if they persisted in the work in violation of the plans and specifications reFerred to, they would not allow the pay for the work. It further alleged that the method n which the work was being done increased the cost to the state, and was doing an irreparable damage and so creating a situation For which there was no adequate legal remeay. The bill then prays for an injunction

This notice to bidders does not refer to any plans and specifications at all, and does not refer the bidder to any source from which any plans and specifications may be obtained by which the work was to be done. As there were no plans and specifications adopted by the Commission and none entered upon the minutes of the Commission, the bidders were left without a guide upon which to do the work, except such as he might obtain from the members of the Capitol Commission or the secretary. Inasmuch as several different plans and specifications had been filed with the secretary of the commission by the architect and none of them had been formally adopted, it is apparent that under the facts of this record the bidders may have been referred to different plans and specifications by different members. It appears from the testimony that the plans and specifications referred to and made an exhibit in the Attorney General's bill were tentatively indorsed and accepted by the Capitol Commission, though not finally and completely adopted and not entered upon the minutes, on or about the 21st day of August, 1916. On the 10th day of November, 1916, the following motion was made and carried at a meeting of the Capitol Commission:

"Motion by Governor T. G. Bilbo, seconded by Mr. Robertson, that the architect, Theo. C. Link, be requested to furnish this commission for its approval complete plans and specifications for each particular contract in connection with the restoration of the old state capitol. commission, and the architect and the contracThe same to be agreed to and signed by the

in the hands of the commission for its records and that hereafter such plans and specifications for each contract shall be approved by the commission and the architect as above stated before bids are invited."

It is manifest from this motion which was

made and entered upon the minutes, and of

which each bidder was charged with notice, that no contract could be validly made un

less and until it had been approved and signed by a majority of the commission.

When the contract was let a motion was

mission had voted to suspend the work until the Capitol Commission could agree upon some plan. The state had a right to protect the public interest by stopping the work until the commission had proceeded according to time of the suing out of the injunction, and the act, which it had not been doing at the has not done even until this time. The Cap

tol Commission had no power and no righ: Attorney General brought suit to test the le gality of that contract, no change in the mir

to make an unlawful contract; and when the

utes after the work was done could be made so as to approve what the contractor had done. It may be that if the minutes hai shown proper specifications, and if notice to bidders had referred to such specifications and had given notice where they could be found and inspected, the state may have got ten a better bid than it did get. Certain it is that no bidder could tell from the minutes kept by the commission what particular plan or specification he would be called on to con ply with, and said commission was equais divided as to which plan he must comply with in order to be paid; and this manifest? presented a situation that was not attractive to bidders, as no bidder would want to do the work and take chances on getting his pay without a lawsuit or of losing his pay al gether. This matter, again, is a matter of public importance and of the greatest ine est to the state. Several departments of the government are vitally interested in the ques tion, and the rule is that, notwithstanding the controversy may have been settled after litigation was entered, the court may prove to determine it, where it is a matter of great public interest.

made by T. M. Henry, one of the commissioners, and seconded by Mr. Power, another, that the bid of the Standard Construction Company be accepted according to the plans and specifications, which each of them understood to be the plans and specifications made exhibit to the bill of the Attorney General. Each of them testified that it was his desire and intention to have the Department of Archives and History located upon the second floor of the old capitol, and each understood that the bid was made with reference to the plans drawn on August 21st, Exhibit A to bill, and on the application of these two members, who so understood the matter, this suit was filed, and the temporary injunction prayed for and obtained was to stop the work from being done upon any other plan from that contemplated in the exhibit to the Attorney General's bill. While it is true that the Attorney General alleged that the contract was let upon the exhibit to his bill, and while it is true that Mr. Henry and Mr. Power so understood at the time the contract was let, in fact, such plan had not been adopted, and there were in fact no legal plans and specifications adopted at all. This does not, however, prevent the Attorney General, who is the legal representative for the state, from suspending the work by a process of law until the requirements of the law are complied with; and, while under the temporary injunction the work could have proceeded according to the plans made exhibit to the Attorney Gen-way's Code, section 4657, Code of 1906 eral's bill, it could not proceed on any other plan until the injunction was dissolved. The act (chapter 112, Laws of 1916) required the Capitol Commission to employ an architect to draw plans for the repair and preservation of the old capitol, and it is clear from a study of the provisions of the act set out in the statement of facts in the majority opinion that the commission had no right to proceed until it had adopted some plan and specification.

When we look to all of the law relating to public contracts by all bodies, we find fro our statutes that it is contemplated that a such work be done on bids according to the plans and specifications, so that the pub may have the benefit of the best bid that ma be obtained. Under section 3930 of Hernias

Capitol Commission has general jurisdizin and control of state property in Jackson, S under the control of a board of trustees which gives the Capitol Commission cha of the old capitol property. It is provided: this section that "work shall not be ordered done except by a majority vote of the sli commission"; and, while this is somewŁat confused under the act of 1916 (sections 3902 and 3933 of Hemmingway's Code), it is p parent that both acts contemplate that It is borne out in the testimony that the where a contract was let, it would be let a work being done under the plan made exhib-cording to the general law of the land. T it to the answer was costing the state more board of public contracts of the state. money than it would to carry out the plan chapter 84 of Hemmingway's Code, chapter made exhibit to the Attorney General's bill. 16 of the Code of 1906, Laws of 1912, c. 25 This fact itself was sufficient consideration is expressly required to see that contracts for and sufficient interest on the part of the state supplying the state and furnishing the cartrol to maintain the bill until the act had been are made to the best bidder, on notice. Th complied with. At the time the decree was same is true of the board of supervisors, a

same is also contemplated and required by, law now, and the court should proceed and section 107 of the Constitution of the state. construe the present statutes so that this So that, construing Act of 1916, c. 112, with question may be settled now. the other statutes upon similar subjects as indicating a public policy, it is manifest that the contract with the Standard Construction Company was not properly made; and, inasmuch as the Attorney General prayed that he be enjoined from doing the work in any other way than according to plan made exhibit to his bill, and inasmuch as the proof clearly shows a state of things that entitle him to maintain this remedy, the question should be decided now; otherwise it becomes a precedent that may be followed by the greatest public mischief. Without imputing any improper motives to anybody, and assuming that all members of the Capitol Commission, as well as the contractors, were acting in the utmost good faith, this practice, if permitted, would result in the greatest injury and harm

It would be useless for me to express an opinion upon what the decision upon the merits should be, as to which view of the law is correct on the power of the Governor under the statute, and the power of the Capitol Commission to locate the Department of Archives and History, or on the question whether the law itself, recreating the old capitol, authorizes and requires the Department of Archives and History to be there placed. But I think the court should consider this case on the merits and not dismiss the case.

to the state. If the board can let a contract

STEVENS, J. (specially concurring). The sole purpose of this injunction suit was to restrain the contractor and the members of the Capitol Commission from restoring the old capitol building according to any plans or drawings except those shown by Exhibit A to the bill, the prayer of the bill being that the defendants be enjoined “from taking any further steps or doing any further work on said second floor not in accordance with the plans and drawings shown by Ex

without identifying any specifications, and having several different sets on hand, it can always award a contract to a favorite; and if it were possible to believe that high public officers would ever engage in any graft scheme, it might be made a means of defrauding the state out of large sums of money by the sim-hibit A to this bill, and that on final hearple expedient of exhibiting one set of plans ing of said cause that said temporary injunction may be made perpetual." chancellor upon final hearing dissolved this injunction, and it now appears that the work originally interrupted by this injunction has been fully done. The old capitol has been

to one bidder and another set to another bid

The

der and awarding the contract according to plans and specifications not marked and identified, and not of record, so that they could be changed or altered after the contract was let. It appears from the testimony of Mr. Pow-restored, the building as reconstructed has er that after the suit originated he sought to withdraw the suit because, in his opinion, a certain statute gave the Governor power to locate the Department of Archives and History, and that the Capitol Commission did not possess this power. The Attorney General, the Department of Archives and History, and the Insurance Commissioner entertained a different view of the law, and it appears that the Secretary of State's action, in making the motion or acquiescing in the motion upon which the case is now dismissed out of court, did so upon the apprehension that in no event could the Department of Archives and History be placed in the old capitol without legislative enactment. It is manifest from his testimony that he would have acted differently but for the belief that the Govermor had this power. This question should be passed upon by the court and the matter settled. The court should also construe the act of 1916, and other laws, and determine the question as to whether or not it was the legislative intention to place the Department of Archives and History in the old capitol. It appears that the Legislature passed a bill at he recent session, directing the Department of Archives and History to be placed in the old capitol, but such bill did not become a aw because passed within the five days preeding adjournment, and was not signed by

been accepted by the Capitol Commission, the contractor paid and discharged, the various offices in the building have been assigned to state officials, and the building is now being used as a state house. The court will take judicial notice of the fact that the old capitol is now occupied by the various departments of our state government, and that the Legislature has made appropriations for the operating expenses of the building. There is therefore nothing which the court can now decide. How could this court now enjoin the prosecution of work which has been fully accomplished? How can this court now enjoin the contractor from rebuilding a structure which he has finally and completely rebuilt? As stated, there is nothing for the court to decide; this is a moot case, pure and simple. This court is too busy with live issues to waste time upon an unfortunate controversy that has already been ended. The case has been submitted both upon the motion to dismiss and upon the merits. It makes no difference whether we decide the case on the motion to dismiss or decide it upon the merits. There is no longer a live issue which the court can deal with and adjudicate. If we sustain the contentions of the Attorney General it is apparent that no relief could now be given under the prayer of his bill. It would be a

case with direction to enjoin the Standard | Commission could ratify the work done, and Construction Company from proceeding with this ratification appears of record.

a contract which it has fully performed, or from restoring a building which it has completely restored. The contractor is no longer on the job and no longer interested in the present row. The bill, as originally conceived and framed, stated a case. In the filing and prosecution of this suit the Attorney General was originally supported by two of the four members of the Capitol Commission. It affirmatively appears, however, that after the filing of this suit one of the two members who, in the language of the bill, "requested the Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, to take the necessary legal steps to prevent the unlawful modification of the plans of the commission," withdrew his request that this suit be prosecuted, and on the contrary asked that the suit be dismissed, and thereafter joined with the other two commissioners in ratifying and confirming all work done by the con

tractor.

Not

In dismissing the appeal I think the case should be dismissed without prejudice to any claim or right of the Department of Archives and History to be quartered in the old capitol. It is a matter of common knowl edge of which the court will take notice that the movement for the restoration of the old capitol was largely initiated and fostered by the State Historical Department and the patriotic and cultured women of our state. The good women of the state appealed to our lawmakers to preserve the old capitol as one of the oldest historical buildings of the state and to provide that it should be used for historical purposes. The public policy of the state was reflected by the state Senate in 1912 when it went upon record as favoring the preservation of the old state house "as an historical building for the state of Mississippi" and "for historical and other purposes." I could not say that sentiment alone inspired the Legislature in providing the necessary funds, but this, it must be conceded, was one of the controlling purposes. This is further evidenced by the statute which was passed by both houses of the Legislature at its recent session, directing that offices in the old state house be assigned to the Department of Archives and History. This expression is not prompted by a desire or purpose to volunteer my personal views on a controversy between different depart ments of our government. What I have to say is pertinent to the sole issue that was made by the pleadings in this case. The bill charges that Mr. Link, the architect, devised a set of plans and drawings for the

I cannot at all concur with the view entertained by my Brother ETHRIDGE in his dissenting opinion that the Capitol Commission adopted no legal plans and specifications whatever. The proof shows that there was a set of plans for the second floor of the building, differing from the plans shown by Exhibit A to the bill, and that the work which has been done by the contractor was done and performed in accordance with written plans and specifications. The plans are referred to in the pleadings as Exhibit D. By these plans the second floor is cut up into suitable and appropriate offices for the different departments of government. only were these plans, Exhibit D, in existence, but by resolution spread upon the min-second floor of the building suitable for the utes of the commission all work done in accordance with these plans has been fully ratified by a majority of the commission. It is perfectly manifest that plans of some kind were agreed upon. The fact that the building has been restored is sufficient evidence of this. The contractor could not have proceeded without some kind of plan. That he did proceed is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that the building is completed. What the contractor did has now been fully ratified by the Capitol Commission. This, in my judgment, legalizes all work that has been done. The original contract was let upon competitive bids and under the supervision of a competent architect. To my mind it is unthinkable that an architect of the highest integrity and unquestioned reputation would permit a state house to be rebuilt without any legal plans and specifications. But even if the facts were that no plans were formally adopted, the Capitol

State Historical Department, that these plans were adopted by the commission, but that the contractor was doing the work a cording to different and illegal plans. It does appear that Mr. Link drew tentatively a set of plans for the second floor designed to accommodate the Historical Department, and to be suited to its needs, but the chancellor held that these plans were never legally adopted, and a majority of the Capitol Com mission declined to order the work done ac cording to these plans. I think the Legisla ture has the supreme power to direct how the building should be used, and that nothing in this litigation should be held to inpair the right of the Legislature to place the Department of Archives and History in the old capitol. The building is state property, all state officials are servants of the state. and the legislative department is supreme in its power to provide a state house and direct how and by whom it is to be used.