Arizona weekly enterprise., 1889-04-20

que the illegality of their demands against the counties and the rational conclusions to be deduced there from. We reiterate that we are moved by no spirit of personal or political an- tagonism to the present incumbents of the bench, but the strong under current of popular expression is sim ply given vent through our columns that whatever evil there may he in the denounced prac tic may be eradicated' We purpose at this time to present a summary of authorities and decisions that will clearly establish the position we assume: that these judges are guilty of unlawful acts that greatly impair their usefulness as judicial officers.
 Paragraph 397, Revised Statutes of Arizona, in subdivision F, provides that "the Board of Supervisors shall have jurisdiction and power under such limitations and restrictions as are pre- scribed by law
 "To examine, settle and allow all accounts LEGALLY CHARGEABLE to the county, and order warrants to be drawn on the county treasurer therefor and provide for the paying of the same"
 Paragraph 407, that "no payment shall be made from the treasury of any county uless the claim or demand shall be duly allowed according to the provisions of the act of the legislature approved March 9th, 1SS7," which is title XIII, of the revised statutes of Arizona.
 Paragraph 400 provides that "all persons having claims against coun ty, except jurors, witnesses and salar- jed officers OF THE COUNTY, the salar ies of whom are by some express provision of law is made demand against the county, shall within six months after | the last item of the account accrues, present demand therefor in writing to the board of supervisors of the coun- | ty against which the demand or claim is held, verified by the affidavit of the claimant or his agent, stating minutely what the claim is for and specifying each several item and the date and amount thereof"
 From the above it is obvious that the boards of supervisors have author ity to allow only such claims as are LEGALLY cHARGEABLE against their par ticular counties.
 Now then, are the claims of the federal judges for services in any par ticular counties legally chafg geable against said counties?
 There is no authority of law either in the acts of Congress or in the acts of the Territorial legislatures making coq Flor any accounts to federal judges for their services on the bench. If so where is. it and for what amounts?
 It is familiar rule of law that boards of supervisors possess no pow CTS which are not in express terms, or by fair implication, conferred upon them by law, and that when such boards venture beyond the scope oi authority so conferred their acts are void and do not bind the county.
 Hodges " City of Buffalo, 3 Denio no; Thomson V. Lee County, 3 Wal, 327 Wells V. Supervisors, 102 U. s 625; Turnpike Go. V. Commissioners 72 Ind, 226; Martin V. Whitman County, 20 Pac. Rep, 599.
 The test of a legal claim is the power of the holder to enforce it by suit. If the claim of the federal judge against the county should be rejected by the board of supervisors could he sue the county under paragraph 415, Revised statutes of Arizona, and re- cover a judgment? And if so for what amount? It is perfectly clear he could not, because he has made no contract with any county; has no legal claim against it to pay him anything, and there is no law of congress, or of the Territory requiring counties to do so and we have seen that under Title XIII, of the Arizona revised statutes the Boards of Supervisors have NC POWER to allow such judges any sum What they have drawn from the coun- ties heretofore then has been by the grace of the boards of supervisor, dealing with the peoples money, with out authority of law. Thus it al pears that the judges of the distric and supreme courts of the territory have not only violated the law in ac cepling from the counties, but have encouraged the supervisors of tn, various counties to do the same thin, with at least the tacit understanding that said supervisors shall be protec ted in their violation flor the plain req son that suits against them for payin; money against law will have to b. tried by the very men who receive' 1t. This is Arizona justice.
 THE board of supervisors met yes terday to district the county unde the provisions of the new fence law and to designate the portions of tn 1 cnIlntv s11hiect fhnratn Their actinr