Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-03-01
OUR LAWS.
SOME SHARP CRITICISMS ON THEIR
 CONSTRUCTIONS.
The Compensation or Supervisors Discuss ed---The Absudities fthe Fence Law---A Chapter Devoted
 to St. Luke.
GLOBE. February b, 1900.

 forward to continue my criticisms of the 10th legislature Act No. l5 is "To provide for the payment of boards of supervisors within the territory of Arizona" This act allows five dollars per diem for each day served as mem- bers of the board and twenty cents per mile actually travelled in going to and returning from their residence to the county seat provided "the total per diem and mileage of each member of the board shall not exceed the fol- lowing sums, 10 wit: The sum of seven hundred dollars in counties Of the first class the sum of four hun dred and fity dollars in counties of the second class; and the sum of three hundred dollars in counties of the third class" The above is so worded as to puzzle almost any Supervisor, honestly inclined. From the text 1t would at first appear that the provls- ion relates to quarters pay; but when we come to calculate 1t and find that the supervisors in counties of the sec ond class get within ten dollars of what they would earn working every day for three months at five dollars per day, and those in counties of the first class are admonished not to make more than seven hundred dollars when they could not possibly make more than four hundred and sixty dollars; it seems like the law makers were pro- viding for one years compensation. Let us see if I am mistaken in my figures. There are only three hun dred and sixty-five days in a year To be lenient we will say three hundred and sixty-siX. At five dollars per day a man would earn one thousand eight hundred and thirty dollars. One fourth of this would be four hundred and fifty-seven and one-half dollars being two hundred and forty-two and one-half dollars less than the law al- lows them. Now then, if the legis- lature meant to allow them seven hundred dollars each quarter why did they not increase the per diem so that they could reach it?
 One pungent idea at least can be drawn from it, viz: that law makers should be clear in their language, so that common folks can understand them.
 Act No. 2l reads as follows: Sec. 1. Any enclosure shall be deemed under lawful fence when said fence is con structed as follows; All fences not less than fty-four inches high, con sistihg of boards firmly fastened 10 posts well set, not more than nine feet apart; the space between the ground and bottom board not more | than eight inches, shall be considered 1 lawful and sufficient fence, and all { fences fifty four inches high consist ing of four barbed wires firmly fas- tened to posts well set not more than thirty feet apart, with good stays eX- tending from the top wire to the grounds, placed every eight feet be- tween the posts, each wire being firm ! ly fastened to such stays, the bottom wire being placed not less than eight cen inches from the ground and the other wires about equal distance apart from the bottom to the top to the fence, shall be deemed lawful and sufficient fence" etc.
 Sec. 3: When any stock shall break into any inclosure inclosed by q law, ful fence and damage the crops ol property in any way, including the breaking of the fence. the said stock shall be liable to the owner of said premises for the said damages, an6 may be held, advertised and sold fol tLa Jo,,,ooou n ho oscaSCnd by three uninterested persons and no tice of sale be posted in three pub lie places in the precinct where such damage occurs, for at least five days prior to said sale.
 Sec. 1. The boards of supervisors of the counties of the territory art hereby empowered, authorized, and ii is made their duty, within thirty day' after the passage of this act, at spe cial meeting held for that purpose, tC designate districts within their respect i've counties within which owners O persons in possession of shall or shal not fence the same" etc.
 Probably I gm not competent judge but still I must suggest few idea ] GOhCtlIllliS lllC hOlNilllS Ol liAAo DllAs
 In section l, I think it would have been more in accordance with com mon sense to have said that the bot tom wire "shall not be over eighteeI inches" from the ground instead o less than eighteen inches" Thre or four feet might be mot less thai eighteen inches" but it would be more See the point gentlemenl Agail would it not be better to hold the own of trespassing stock liable, than | hold the stock themselves?
 If the property damaged woul amount to more than the value of tn stock how would man recover b selling them? For my part l neye heard of dumb animals being held rC sponsibIe for damages before. seems to me that the people woul have much preferred to have the dan ages canvassed and satisfied as in ca: es of other trespass. And again, tn bill makes it 3 duty of the supervisor to declare whether or not persons possession of land shall or shall nc fence the sameW
 Kind reader, imagine the supervi ors in your county dictating to 70 "whetheryou shall or shall not fence , your farm Do you think you woul fence if you did not want 10? l thin
 nOt.
 l can hardly force myself to b
 lieve that the 18th legislature meal
 this, and yet this is what they sai
 and if they did no mean it why q - they not say something else that th'
 did mean?
 Our board guessed at their mea
 ing and declared it a law, but le
 it to the farmers themselves wheth
 they would fence or not. And tl
 farmers, guessing at their meeting tc are putting the bottom wire as Ae
 eighteen inches from the ground
 near as they can guess it; taking cal
 however, not to get it less than eigl
 cen inches. If they get it more tn
 let it pass.
 Now few words about another
 their acts and I close. On March D. 1889, the governor approved an g
 "to reimburse C. A. Luke for expenS
 incurred Inv him in rpDreSentjn0 {