Arizona citizen., 1876-10-07
e Review.

French in the Census Fraud case, which is given in full in another column of this issue, We confess our inability to determine upon what ground the. learned judge arrives at the conclusion that he cannot put the machinery of a. court of equity into operation to stop. the contamination of great and ire parable injury.
 Confessedly, the man question to be decided is. has the Judge of this. Court the legal power to grant ihe in junction prayed for in the bill," and though much effort is put forth tol show that on the hearing it was not shown that the Territorial law under which the Secretary makes the appor- tionment is unconstitutional, we can. not find any discussion of the question of the jurisdiction of the court. The fact that no question was ever raised in the Territory of Nevada as to theI suficIency of a law similar to the one under discussion, decides no issue that we are aware of, and can carry with it. nothing decisive except perhaps an in dlcation that under that law no fraud on the rights of the people was at tempted to he perpetrated through its ~trumentalIty In the tax cases cit ed by the writer of tMs opinion, there was not an unanimous opinion arrived at by the learned Justices of the Su- preme Cour; of California, but the weight of authorities is certainly against the legality of delegation of legislative power
 The Judge in speaking of the great ease of Osborn and others vs. the off cers of the Bank of the United States, and the Iowa cases cited by the coun- sel for the plaintiff, says, in all of these cases the subject matter is entire ly different from that of the case now before me. The matter there W. fran chise, money property, vested rights, and the like; in this case the subject matter is political or at best purely leg islatrve in its nature" The case of. Sweet vs. Fayille, g Iowa, cited by counsel for plaintiff was a suit to re strain the Board of Supervisors and other officers of county from remov ing county seat and county offices, al- legins in the bill that there was a fraud in the votes that were cast at an election held to determine whether the county seat should remain at Marshal or be removed to OSage. Here theI question was purely political, and the court decided that it had the authority { 10 interfere by injunction and did re- ] strain the officers as prayed to do in the bill The case of Rice vs. the same defendant, in the Iowa, raised : the same inquiry in regard to political rights, and the cases of Dishow vs. Smith, 10 Iowa, and Bradley vS Com missioners, ? Humph, also involved ., the question of the authority of a court of equity to interfere by injunction tol restrain fraudulent acts that were pure V ly and only political, and in each off ( these cases it was decided that the courts had such power and that It was r their duty to use it. :
 There is but one reference made in , this lengthy opinion to the "main [ question to be decided, 7" and that is in | the following words: Il am asked 10 , grant an injunction upon hearing in , chambers, which if granted, must be , paramount 10 the final determination !, of the case; see Natoma W and NJ. Co. vs. Parker ct al, 1G Cal. the 116 sec tion, page 403 Compiled Laws of Ari- Zon, being identical with the Califor- mia Statute, under which the above de- cision was made am entirely clear that il cannot be done" Thus is the. main question decided in one brief sentence; the ground of the decision is that if granted it will be paramount to| a final determination of the case. What, let Us enquire, will be the result of the injunction being deniedg Will. that not be paramount to a final deter imitation of the case? The Secretary makes the apportionment upon the fraudulent census returns of Yavapai county, and the rights of every honest citizen of Arizona Territory are vio- lated and this upon a process of rcas- onlng that will apply as well in favor of granting the redress as against it.
 Why is so much pains taken to elab- crate upon a question that is not pro posed, " for many reasons" to be pass ed on decisively, and why is the main question disposed of in so summary manner?
 Was Chief Justice Marshall wrong when he said that if the person who Is the real principal, the person who is the true source of the mischief by whose power and for whose advantage it is done, be himself exempt from all judicial process, it would be subversive of the best established principles to say that the laws could not afford the same remedies against the agent em- ployed in doing the wrong. which they would afford against him could his principal be joined in the suit." Os-. born ys. Bank of United States. 6 Cur