Arizona weekly citizen., 1889-07-13
Facts Don't Lie.

passed after said legislature had com pleted its session on March 21, 1889, ''are valid laws in Arizona, and ought to be | forced" We happened to be in PheniA
 at the close of the legal time Of the ses sion and know that every legislator was | of the opinion, that, unless an extra ses
 sion should be called by the President
 the scheme to get possession of certain 1 offices would have to be dropped. This too. was the opinion of every respecta-
 ble citizen of the Territory at that time
 and, we believe, Is yet. Mir. Churchill ls
 accused of being the author of the revo-
 lutionary scheme that has been sci
 on foot to disgrace the Territory, and
 put its citizens to needless expense merely to satisfy the craving of Repub licans for office and pap.-Courler.
 How so. Mir. Courier? You seem tc
 have forgotten all the history of the pro ceedings of the various legislatures oi Arizona. with which you were once cer-
 tainly familiar. To refresh your memory
 we quote you the following from the journal of the 11th Legislative Assembly which shows that the Democratic mem- bers of that body believed that it had a right to sixty working days, because they voted to defeat the following reso- lutions, which were offered by General
 Rollins, Republican member from Co
 chise county:
 MT. Rollins offered the following
 resolution:
 "WHEREAs, according ta the provisions of section 1852 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, the sessions of the Legislative Assemblies of the several Territories of the United States shall be limited to forty days duration; and
 "WHEREAs, such time was extended to sixty days by an act of Congress, ap- proved December g, 1880; and
 "WHEREAs, the sixty days of this ses- sion expired on the 4th day of March 1881: and
 "Whereas, this Legislative Assembly has no legal right to remain in session after the said 4th of March; therefore,
 Be it resolved by the Council, the House concurring, that the Eleventh Legislative Assembly of Arizona ad- journ sine die 12 o'clock this pm.
 ''Mr. Rollins moved the adoption of the resolution.
 ''On motion of Mir. Meade, the resolu- tion was laid on the table bys the fol- lowing vote:
 "Ayes: Messrs Cornwall, Darlington, Ficas, Hereford, Meade, Stevens and Thomas-8.
 '.Nayes: Messrs Anderson, Earth, Rol- lins and MT. President.
 From the foregoing it will be seen that Mr. w. K. Meade, now U. s. Mar shal of Arizona appointed by Cleveland, and Mir Baker, of Maricopa, MT. Corn wall, of Mohave, Mr. Ficas, then of Che chise, now of Maricopa. MT. Ben Here ford, of Pima and MT. Thomas of Mari copa-all Democrats and mostly leading men in the party, then declared by their solemn votes given as sworn representa- tives of the people, that the Legislature of Arizona had the right to sit after the sixty days had expired. The law has not been changed since then. It was the same when the 18th Legislative As sembly refused to obey the dictates of Governor Zulick and adjourn on the 2lst of last March, how can you Mir. Courier, now claim that this is party question? or hold the Republican party responsi- ble for remaining in session after the consecutive sixty days had expired in 1889. when your party itself set the ox: ample and made the precedent therefor in 1881. It is too late for this. 1t is party question both parties are commit ted to it and neither can complain. Again, Mr. Courier, how can you assert that you know that every legislator was of the opinion that the scheme to get possession of certain offices would have to be dropped? You certainly know that majority of the members of both houses of the last Legisla- ture remained in session and confirmed the appointees of Governor Wolfiey and passed the appropriation bill on the Sth, 9th and 10 of April. Willyo please ex- plain how those members could have done that if they are honest and candid men unless they believed they had a legal right to sit as members of that Legislature at those times: Or, how can you charge that MT. Churchill or any one else is at the bottom of any re- scheme when the attempt to hold the offices is made in pursuance of the acts of the Legislature? How can you estimate that there is any re- scheme when such an insin- uation implies that your own Demo cratid leaders were revolutionary in their conduct in 1881. If the acts of 1889 are revolutionary those of 1881 were equally so, and those were the acts of your one party who had a clear majority in both houses in that year. It would seem Mr. Courier, that in order to be respectable in your opinion a per son must do asyou wish, and that any one who fails to comply with your dictates is lacking in that quality.
 Now, Mir. Courier, permit us to ask you one question: Do you deny that the appropriation bill is valid law? If you do, then have you mot asked the Auditor of the Territory to draw his warrant in your favor for moneys ap- to you by that act? If the act is invalid, how does your conscience permit you to take money out Of the Territorial Treasury by virture of its provisions? You certainly claim to be honest. We submit that is neither hon est, fair or consistent to take both posi- tions. You should take one side or the other side of this question in a manly way, and not continually try to convey to the public false impression in regard to individuals, whether they be republi- cans, or tdemocrats. Ii the appropria- IlOn UIll lS NdlIu law, Inen IIe COnilI- nation by the council of all of the ap- pointees of Governor Wolfey is valid and it is admitted by even the demo cratic lawyers that they are all entitled to the offices. By asking for a warrant you assert the validity of that act, and it won't do for you to call the act valid, for the purpose of drawing your money and void for the purpose of keeping your democratic brethern in office. Au revoir-Tribune.