Arizona citizen., 1876-10-07
THE CENSUS FRAUD.
The Hearing of the Injunction Case Decision of the Chief Justice Is the Law POWerIess 10 Restrain Fraud?

| Fraud?
 In Chambers, District Court, First
 Judicial District, in and for the County
 of Pima, Territory of Arizona.
 The Territory of Arizona, exrel, Sid
 ney R. Delong, Edward N Fish, Juan
 Elias, as supervisors of the County of Pima Charles Baker, Julius Samter l II. $. Fitzgerald, as supervisors of the County of Yuma Joseph Ceiling
 wood, l.. NJ Stiles, Patrick Holland, as
 supervisors of the County of Pinal.
 James H. Toole, John w Hopkins. John Wasson, William C. Davis, Ja-
 cob $. Mansfield, inhabitants and cleo tors of the County of Pima II. N. Alexander. 4. J. Finlay, C. H. Brinley, IJ. NJ Redondo, W J Berry, David Balz, inhabitants and electors of the l County of Yuma, vs. George D. Ken dall, Henry w Fleury. Fred Williams,
 as supervisors of the County of Yava- pal and as inhabitants of the County of Yavapai; and John P. HOvt, as Sec retary of the Territory of Arizona.
 The plaintiff in this cause, by the bill of complaint therein, asks that the census returns of the County of Yava- ipai be suppressed as fraudulent and void, or be reformed so as to conform in numbers with the actual inhabitants
 of said County of Yavapai. That John P. HOyt. the Territorial Secretary, one of the defendants in cause, be enlOined from appOrtiOning the representation in the Legislative Assembly for the several counties of said Territory. And ,. the hearing has been on order 10 show cause why said Secretary should Tot
 be enjoined from making such appor- tiOnment
 The plaintiff in the bill is the Terri tory of Arizona, eX rel. the supervisors
 of the counties of Pima, Pinal and Gu- ma, and eX rel certain inhabitants and -| electors of the counties of Pima and
 Yuma. The defendants in the bill are the supervisors of the County of Iava- pal, as such supervisors, and the Sec
 retary of the Territory as such Sec retary
 The main question Co be decided Is,
 has the Judge of this court the legal
 power to grant the injunction prayed
 for in the bill. under the showing made , on the hearing at chambers tO show cause against granting such injunction. ! \ great many objections Co the bill lt self are urged by the defendants, most of which are not well taken. oO far as
 the bill alleges conclusions of law merely. of course it will be disregarded
 But the legal question still remains.
 Section 1S49 of the revised statutes of the United States provides that Leg
 islative Assemblies (of the Territories D may readjust and appOrtion the rep |. reSentatiOu lO the two Houses thereof
 among the several counties and dis b trictS. in such manner from time t0
 time as they deem just and proper
 The 9,h section of the Territorial cen isus act provides, that the Secretary af r ter opening and verifying the census -| returns, &c.. shall proceed tO make an
 aDportionment for members of the House of Representative and for mem
 bers of the Council of the Legislative ! Assembly among the several counties b. according tO their population, as s shown by the census returns of the re s Spective counties. Is not this dele 3 gation of power by the Legislative As $ semblies of the Territory to the Secre . tarv of the Territory. which the stat
 ute of the United States says shall bC l exercised by the Legislative Assem- ! plies themselves? This is, with OnC ] other point of law hereinafter cOnsid cred. the only legal question raised II
 the discussion of the matter on whlct . I entertain any doubt It is the only y legal question Of difficulty in the pro s 'ceeding. I find on examination tha 2 the Territorial Legislative Assemble: t of Nevada conferred precisely thi. e power on the Governor of that Terri
 tory, and that the apportiOnmen r seems 10 have been made by him, anC so far as I am advised, no question a l. to his eXcersing this power was eye n raised
 Il In the cases of the Saving and LOal f Society. and the Does vs. Austin, 4 ;. Cal. 4l5, this question of the dclega a ton of Legislative power was argued t with great fitness and elabOrately con l.. .sidered by the court, and in kindred - cases reported in the 41th and 4Stl e vOlumns of the reports of that Stat n the same question was still further ar F. cued and considered, without reach n inr a unanimous result or full con q currence of opinion by the learned anC l. able Justices of the Supreme Court o q that State. These cases, generally des i. iunated as the Tax Cases present al fl exhaustive examination of this ques r. ton. The question here, is the com | pliance of the Territorial law with thu E. United States statute. there the cOmpli q ance of the State law with the cOnsti $ tuition of the State,-the legal question n being precisely the same, however, II e both courts, the United States statute n here, taking the place of State constl | tuition there
 d. There can be no question of th' n power of the Legislative Assemblie .t of this Territory 10 prescribe the mod if and manner of taking the census, a -- this must of necessity be done D, II means of agencies to be designated b, " the Legislature. The Boards of Su 4. pervisors of the counties and the Cen D. sus Marshal by them appointed, ma. "a Derform the act of taking the censu r and make returns thereof Co such agen n or officer as the Legislature may des ,t irnate. But can such agent or office d after all this has been done make tn .f apportiOnment? ] do not propose 70 this hearing at Chambers To pass de .e| cisively upon the question, for man, n reasons. the chief of which if that e is not necessarily involved m the d'
 cisinu of the matter of granting O j withholding the injunction on thl .a| bill. as will presently abundantly aI ~ pear 1 have alluded tO the discus ,, sion of thi, question in the Suprem 'i Court of California, without eXtendln !. the exami -auOn 10 the courts of othe - States. I may add that it Is also t !, some extent considered in the srea - =. nf n.Lnrr nnl nfhur. E- the uft