The weekly Arizona miner., 1869-01-16

| NufNhFtfh 70 tfN NNlfF ffiINF VI MI f'i VI ttiN | First Legislative Counci. approved November 10,
 1894, purporting Go dclcg 'e io him such anihori-
 ~ Chat Che Organic Law of Che Territory specially authorized and empowered the Governor Go pre- ' scribe thc app0riiCnuent of members Co the sc'e- ml counties and The time place and manner ot | their election. for Che First Legislative Council, ! but expressly providing that, thereafter, the time ! place and manner of holding and conducting all ] elections by the people, and tho appoitloumcnt
 of thc hcyrcsCntafivcs Co Che several counties, in ! The Council and House Of Representative, should 1 bc prescribed by law. The state of thr case, as | made hv the complaint, the answer admits. nrst,
 nflrmatvtly, by expressly stating thc election oi | Che Respondent to have been hnd on thC dny set
 up n the cOmplaist, and second, iu iAiling, spcc- fc1liy t0 deny the other allegations thCrCiu. By 1 operation of aw. therefore, the same arc all ad
 uttcd as stated in the complaint. No proof was ! taken iu the case, md none was necrssary, nor, indeed. any admissible, the whole case arising l on Che record. as made by the plgadlngs From the case as made hy tle record. two material questions present themselves for thc consideration
 0 tt- Court ist, Was the election hCin at the time
 specified in thc record legally valid ecciions or,
 Co state the question m9fe clearly, DO other qucs
 ton being presented by the record as Co Inc val
 idy Of said election, except as Co the time oi ts ' holding. Was the Act of tho Third Legislative
 Council, oi tho year lS66 that purp0rtcd Co change the time of holding the general election from the | irst Wednesday in September Go the first Wcincs- day in June, a valid Legislative Aets In nne bad ! it the force Of law And second, including and
 embracing the question just stated, had the Third
 Legislative Council, apuortioued, elected and con
 vcncd in the year lsgd, that purported Co enact that law, any legislative power, or bad Che legisa- l tive power Of the Territory hpseds Or, Go stale this question more clearly, as no other quesfioE Is presented by the record as Co tha legislative power of that COeaeii bui the appoFti0ument oi the same hy the Governor, wss this appOrii0n-
 mcnt of the Third Legislative Council by the Governor Q compliance with the Organic Act. and 1 a competent, valid act under ts provisional In
 FEas saFH Hfaa Nesf
 recc-a, s!! Fs: sSasiss=F ;ho second iJF. i tii.i
 ls answered in the Hrg ltiye. the first Is thereby
 disposed Of as showing the legislative act in qaeS. tion Invalid and nopcrniivc ds law, from ihc Sant Of legislative power in tke body ttat pafposted co pass it. First, then. was Che apportlonmcnt of iae Third Legislative CouHcil hy fhe G0vtruor. cofnpi.lncc with the Organic Law, aud O cosap.- teut valid sct under us provisional The duty ich the Court Is here called upon Go perform Is always cue of great drliclcy, and the power which it brings Into actyitY Is only tn be cxegci-ed in cases entirely free from doubi The question here presented, and which Hes st the very threshold of thc Inquiry, Is one of Inc very wravest Importance fhat has arisen, or ever can ar.sc, touching the ,-rsent CT prospective condition ard iUIass O tis Territory It ts, too, one la which thc Court
 deeply feels lts responsibility for tGe question is Gf nc less magnitude tiian whether any legislative power now dOes, or bas since the terninali0n of the Second Legislative Council. existed In ths Territory, and whether thsi power has nos iapsed and been cst hy thr omission 0r wismau@s.unacnt oi those having it in charge Under our iOrm oI government Territory, unlike a s0refvis,n State.
 has no original inhcrcnt sovereignty l.olitical
 vitality. il is mcTe creature oT rng iaN, QoIi- tical corporation, created by Congress under the third paragraph af the fagrtA article Of the Con
 stituf0D Of the United States, giving to Congress power to dSpOse of and make all nestlfnl rules aai regulations respecting the Territory other property belougingto the nited States. AlthongA
 ia tho organization of Ierritories ther political
 powers are divided, as iH sovereign, coastitgtloua
 States yci each of these powers and all, together
 cxis; only, and arc exercised not ln virtue nf any
 coBsltutiOnal rights poltic sovereignty either | ia the Territory or the people over which they are exerted, bat solely h virtue or the Acts Of | Congress creating them. From thc very nature
 o Territorial tageFTsiiss :, as of corporation, ! both the measure Of lts powers, wei as thc
 mctbOd Of exercising them, art fbc mere creatures
 Of law, and ln either casu, ihc laW is delegutiou ' Of power and not a iimitatiou Of any origiuai power existing Ia the Territory or corporation thus created. Any oibcr view would h0pclrssly coa!oand all ideas of order and good government. and all distinction between gQFcrnmeuts and the | iuslrnmeutaiiry by which they work la Ene. s Territorial Government is. in Us nature, paS Cr and capacity, just like a corporaton--a mere creature oi the hw that created it with just sgch pogers and capacity, aud DO o;hers and to be ex. erclsed ln tue manner and % the extent. and not otherwise, as pointed Ouf by the law of its crea- ton. The implied powers of either arc limited to those only tbat are necessary to carry 0tIi tiIv powers expressly given Nllh the further lssli,ts-
 ton that, iu Inc exercise of either express or lT.
 piled powers, discretion or variance Is allOsed
 either ID the manner or measure oi their exercise, where such manner or measure Is defined and prescribed by the law Of their e-rafiou The fot. 1 loving cases Illustrate these principies: GOoda. ! B5N Vs Commissioners or Ramsey County Iltt
 Kansas Rep, ?. 4O City of Leavcnworth vs Ran.
 kin, 2d Kansas Rep. 3s5 People vS JIticA Iusi,.
 rance Co. 10th JohnsoB's Rep 3JS. Halstead ys, l Mayor of New York, ComstOck Rep. 4a0 \ body corporate can only act n the way prescribed by the law creating it. 2d Craneh \ Rep l68 l beaty vs. Marine IEs. Co, d Of Johnson. 100 ElreIaan's lus. Co. vs. Ely ? Of Cowan Rep, 673
 HOosick ys the College Of Physicians 5th Wend Rep, .41. MesiasteTs ys. Reed lsl Grant Rep ! 90 State ls corporation, ,-staie of ludiara
 ys Nnman, oih Hlll hep-, S3. Darihmouth Col ! Fs Woodward. 4th Wheat, 63. Corporate act.
 must not oniy be authorized by the charter bn,
 those acts must be done by such officers Or agent.
 and in such manner as the charter authorizes
 Bank or Augusta "a. Earl l3 Peters Rep, 5ss
 Chief Justice Marshall. in his elaborate opinion
 delivered n the case Of Dartmouth College vs
 Woodward, above referred to, defines corpora
 lion as l" an artificial invisible and intangible be
 ing existing only n contemplation Ot awn Il
 possesseS only Those powers and rErTcTiigs xhiai
 tiIs law Of iis creation coufers upon it either cx
 pressly or as incidental To it's very existence
 These general principles are so we'll settled and
 established, both upon principle and authority a,
 rules or action for both private and municipa
 corporations that they have become almost s,,a
 exi9ns Keeping these principles in view, V,
 shal be better enabled tO consider tLe main ques
 ton now under consideration.
 By the hfth section of the Organic Ae, the leg
 islatiFe power and authority is vested in the Gov
 eFnor and Legislative Assembly. This arrange ment of the legislative power, making the Gover nor the creature of and the mere agent of th,
 Denerai 'sovernment, an Integral part of the legs laiive authority, and giving him dominating tn huence over She popular branch. exhibits nor, ? clearly the true legal condition of Trrritoris
 government, destitute of political sovereignty ! and altogether subordinate to the National Soy
 ereigDty--a mere creature Of national legislatlon-