Arizona citizen., 1877-04-28

dant to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue, restraining him from removing the offices and pro perty connected with the Capital, iron Tucson to Prescott, the following ar gument was made on behalf of plain tiff:
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
 On the l2lh day of February, 1875 an act entitled An Act to proyid, for the taking of the census of and il the several counties of the Territory O Arizona, passed by the eighth Legis lative Assembly, became a law. Tn, ninth section of that act provided that il should be the duty of the See reJary of the Territory, upon the re ceipt of the census return from tn, various counties, to make an apporuon ment for members of the Leglslativ, Assembly among the several counties according to their population as shown  by the census returns. On the 2d da, of October 1876, the Secretary accord inglY made such an apportionuent and the Governor, therelpon, issued a proclamation, calling for an election o members of the ninth Legislative As sembly.
 On the 1st day of January 1877, that Legislature convened, and on the Sd day ut February following, they passed an act, providing tpr removal of th, property and effects of the Territory from the village of Tucson, to tn, village of Prescott, which was declared Co b- the Capital of the Territory.
 This action is brought to rcs,ram the Secretary from making theremaya above mentioned, on the ground thai the law which provided that the Sec rgtary should make the app1r,ionment uL representation ior the ninth Leg!-la tive Assembly. was i.lcga., and that tho act of tine Secretary, II making Jh, aNpoTtionmeIl Was void and Lcnc, that the Legislature which convened a the C!ty Oi Tucson on the lsl dal of January, 1877, was not convened ia accordance with law, and therefor, uJt lle lawfully constituted Lcri-llIv, Assembly of the Territory Of Arizona HAD THE LEGISLATURE OF lo15, ANY
 LEGAL EXISTENCE WHATEVER AND
 HENCE AMI LEGISLATIVE POWER: Was the app1r,iaumeat ot the ninth Legislative Assembly of Arizona, bs the Secretary thereof, a compliance with the express provisions of the organic act of Inc Territory, and competent valid act under is provisions:
 We ash you to bear III mind, while reliecting upon these questions, taa ,hc organic uci of the Territory ni Arizona stands in the same re.a ion shlp lo lt. that the constitutions d1 jl the JIteI S,.c-, and the States, re specuy-ly, that il is Co Jhe Territory In law aad iu fact. its Constitution. . TERRITORIAL POWERS SUBORDINATE
 AND LIMITED.
 Before we enter upon the discussion of the questions asked above. 1t De | comes necessary t5 glance hurricIly a the political status yl the Territories and to dx definitely the position which ! they occupy under our system of gov Iernment.
 By an express provision of the con siitution (Art. ". See. s. the Con gress Is given the power to dispose of and make all neeIfal rules and regula tions concerning the territory, urothe, property belonging Co tine United States and, although in the organization oI the Territories their political power. are divided, a, in sovereign $ ates, iut, the three great divisions of executive legislative, and judicial. still they d not uy-scss these qualifications natura. Iy; they have no original, iuheren . sovereignty or their own, no natural inbOrn political life, but depend for an endowment Of these qualities upon tha laws of Congress, by whici alone they can be called in exist eHce.
 They are mere creatures of the law purely political c1rp1ra,ions-tJ which such laws are grants Of power, an, not Limitations upon o.I lnal powers Lake every corporation. they are tA' mere creatures of lhe laws which Cr-at cd them, possessing only such powcr and capacltie-, as that law gives thrm 't, be exercised only in the name prescribed by that law.
 :. They are not sovereign States, witt political powers inherent In them but upon their organization, oUtdi, such power. as are given 0 them b. the act Of their creation.
 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A sTATl
 AND TERRITORY Is RADICAL. ;. The one possesses inherent sovereignty and retains all the powers Of govern ment, except those specially granted t' the federal government; the other, ha no inherent sovereignty, and pos>es-e no powers of government, except lhos specially delegated Go II by the I-ue'i' government
 A STATE Is A CORPORATION.
 Stale of Indiana vs. Nutman,G 6 Hll ] 33. Dartmouth College, vs. Wood ward i, Whaton, 65. A corporation can act only ln the way prescribed il the act Creating II. Beatty vs. Maun 1 Ins. Co. , Johson, I09 Firemans Ius i C.. vs. Ely. 3 Cowan, 655. HoosicI 'vs. College of Physicians, , Wendell '541. McMastcrs vs. Red, Grant, 2t Not only must the acts, which mal . be performed by a corporation, besuci as are authorized by the law Of ih