Arizona citizen., 1877-04-28

the manner pointed out m the Constr tuuon." II thIs reasoning be correct, It follows irre-islibly jha, the IeeisIa- ture of this Territory went beyond the boundary limits when ,her attempted to invest the Secretary with authority to prescribe tbe por,ioumcn, Of rep .resentaii, ,n in the face of the express provisions oI the law requiring 1t to be done by the law-maklng power.
 In The ca-c of ExlInc vs. smith, re- ported in tine Fifth Cal, page liz, the court pass directly upon a similar phrase to the one used in the organic act
 The court say, "The words pre- scribed by la0' look to actual ie-Isia tion upon the subject ald in D. great. sense cJn be extended yo a permission for the exercise Ot theI- power lO au- other Besides the pJ"cr Go prescribe by law is legislative, and cannot be conferred on judicial or other DtIicers "
 The law imposes upon the Le-l-lg- tive Assembly the dU-y Ot dppOr.ilE- ing the representation by tAe same terms. and ID the same connection that il does the dutg of fixing the time. place and manner Oi Aolln- the cleo tiOns. The legislature might. with the same p:OpgieJy have attempted Co con fer upon the Secretary tJe power 10 fix time and place Ot holding the election. and Co prescribe thc manner in which .f .Ir ! | not have stopped JDc.c, but might have conferred upon uim the authority to pass certain laws, or in short. invest ei him Wi.h inc whole ui the Lsgi-ia- tive auh5li.y and functions. 1T inc law by which ,uis power was attempt ed tO be cuuieGFcu ua inc Secretary Is contrary Go the VrOvi-iOus Oi the Or-' gauic act and Ihc s'u,U,e- of the t~It- ed States. then It i- void Go the CXt.E. that !; stands In opposition tJ those cnac'mgnts, for they are the supreme law. and Territorial legislation must conform thereto
 We have addressed ourselves t1 the merits Ot ,lc case, but it may be said that granting the correctness of all that has been said, rh- legislature which passed tlr law under discussion, wus at least de iacto legislature, and lha, as such, lts 8cts ca-uO, be attack ei col.ateuLi.y.
 We grant Jha: thIs proposition j. true in the abstract but deny its appll- cabilily to the present case.
 THIS Is NOT 4 COLLATERAL ATTACK.
 The attack is directly upon the lc- cality of ,he legislature that passed the act. By the complaint tLe question IS directly raised, Was the body that passed the act in question, the Le-is- jutivc Assembly of tLe Territory of Arizona? 1T .hls is dcmed, then that .Qucsti0n is pat directly iu issue. l. 1t Is not denied then all we contend for i- admiueI A collateral issue I> an issue taken upon some matter aside from the general issue in tu- case. 20 BJuyicr's Law Die, v0i. !, page I-> : but it may be maintained taut If we 1 impeach the lc-alIly of this body 30, 30 . legislature, It should have been madC a barry To thc action. ~et.uE aside |iuc impJ>slbiliry of such proceed ! ing. that body nJt being iu existence and the law never requiring imPo-si- bIhtieS-We claim tuu, it k not Hrces- slrv. This case may be a~-.uiidled tO that of mpcaculng a judgment In such Case lt Is no, Hcccs-..r Co make the court in which tIc judgment was rendered. d pary tn tine action, even where the defect Is in the want of DOW CT in Jue court itself Here We claim the body JId not have the power Co pass the luw, IuJ-mUCh a- it was mol the Legislative Council ol the Terri toly oI Arizona. Ii a justice, CuUr' should reader a lUd-mvn, on go quc,- ton Of utie Co land, and We desired Go ImpeacA that judgment, We certainly could dO sO directly, aud Iu doing so. it would not Jc necessary tJ make the court pa. ty tO the action. The justices cOdIt, m respect Co la, iud -mcut, would UcCup. 60 place anal agOus Co this p.ciCudc1 legislature, Iu respect Co the act m question. The Judgment itself might be regularly rendered on it's lace, but the court would not be laHIu. court Tor such d purDOsc. SI this acj may be regularly passed and authenticated, Uut jHe body passing 1t Was not a lawful body IuI such purpose, aud a> the validity ol the judgment MigIL be called m que~- ton without making the body passing IJ a party, SD the ,auti.y Oi this act may uc IMpeacucd without making the legislature 60 party.
 Q .s. .rH. ..H Co the eApedlcucy ui granting tHc iu- junction asked for There !, uJ q4e-- -lJn Uut t.aJ It Is U matter which Fest, iu the discretion Of lnc court Iu yIc" of the circumstances attending cycA particular case, auu applying that rule Go Uni, Case,
 OUGHT THE ISJUSCuuN TO BE GRANT
 ED oE REFUSED.
 On the one hand, if the injunction is granted, ,hc removal of the offices au d the property will be delayed a few month, ouiy, even # upon a final hear ing uf the Case it should be decided against the plaintiff; during which time E0 exJrl expense i- incurred, and no inconvenience clgI.cj. VAlic m the other u.ut, It j.e injunction Is dc- ni-d auI lue offices and pruper,y aIe moved and the case should yc finally determined ,l favor oi Jhc platinum. Iwcparau.e iuiu.g will have been done, a large sum oi mJH y Wi.I nave been eSpeuueI II ta4-porIug tus cu4c.s io Prescott, .au al equal amount iu bringing tAen back. A pi.ce wiI have 6, u- prepared i3g their rec-rl D upon their aIi.a. t..uI-. ,..s yAI ..c. upon Aetr ,u.l D.rr. A -gya, iucau yelieacc WI.. ye -..ta..eL up.H .-e u.!l- c-r> ty h. c.u. .u.-aa .i jle.. lem '- aI ant tul- .i their am.Ic- lle m,u.g cAp-uae- can ia no w.. b. r,- c.v-scl a-uu tH la- ..y.lc r-.-.lv. r........H| ......