Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-03-29
THE sLIPsHOD MANNER IN WHICH
 THEY ARE ENACTED.
Great Waste of Time in Senseless and Useless LegisIatiOn--Where the Fault Comes in---Need of More thorough
 Legislative Work.
GLOBE, March, 4th

l GIldl pClOIC any JuollSO Oi pO"NS AiA OAAS county in which the offense was com mitted, and if found guilty shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than three hundred dollars for each offense, or by imprisonment not less than ten days nor more than ninety days in the county jail"
 This is another instance in which the 18th fooled away valuable time belonging to the people, "monkeying' around and thoughtlessly legis- lating for the mischief-maker.
 If fthe person who thrust this measure upon the Legislature for consideration had taken a httla pains to examine the Statutes he would have found in Paragraph .933 (Sec 933} 6f she Penal Code, . much better Erotectiop for fences than the one lie has given .ss. This section feafls ' Eyefy 'lie' ! sos. ,s 10 maisci iisures or destr9ss any real or personal property not his own, in cases otherwise than such as are specified in this code, is guilty oi | n1isdemeanor."
 Unless a different punishment is provided a misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of not more than three hun dred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprison- ment. The inferiority of Act 48 to this is clearly apparent inasmuch as the penalty provided is considerably l less, hence certain amount of the dread of punishment is taken from the mind of the wrong doer
 Under the other it would be Qor the same offense) either three hundred dollars or six months or both the three hundred dollars and the six months ; whereas under this Act of the 18th it would only be either the fine of three | hundred dollars, or the three months 1 imprisonment, but not both fine and imprisonment. If both the fine and imprisonment could be in ficted the wrong doer would have the use of it of three months (suppos- | ing the full extent of the punishment to be inflicted) but as both can not be inflicted he has far greater con cession made him than even this. Let us see: If the fine alone be imposed he has the advantage of six months and if the punishment is meted out to him by way of imprisonment he has | the advantage of three hundred dol lars.
 Probably their opinion was that the law was too severe and if they offer this as an excuse for this bill I will say nothing more in regard to it 1 further than to suggest an idea.
 FS, If it is just to send a man to the 1 penitentiary for stealing horse, for the period of ten years, is it an un- 1 reasonable punishment to impose upon a man, as provided in the Code, for the dastardly crime of destroying of your fence, which protects your orchards and fields, whereby damage may re- suit to you double, aye treble, the value of the horse? I think not.
 But they might say they did not know this provision was in the Code, to which I would reply that they had lawyers with them who should have known it and if they did not they would have acted wisely to look for it and then they would have saved them selves the time which they spent re- ferring and considering this bill, for some more valuable purpose.
 The next questionable law of theirs to which shall cite the reader, is the notorious Constitutional Convention Act.
 The reader will pardon me for again calling it up from the political ob- scurity to which Cos. Wolhey en- deavored to consign it, for since it is as much an Act of the Legislature as any of which I have written, I can not pass it by without some comments.
 At the time of its passage some of our territorial papers endeavored to prove its invalidity and that it had no claims upon the people for it's en- forcement, because of it's irregularity.
 In regard to it's binding effect upon the public I will observe that it was just as binding upon the public and our officers as other Acts of the 10th Legislature which are regularly en- forced, and that so effeotaaliy too that the people have not questioned them,
 Now as to it's irregularity, I do not see how it's enemies could object to it on that score. knoW it is the com. mon practice, or has been, for Con- gress to pass an enabling act, after which the people are 10 call their con vention and frame their constitution but it will be remembered that this rule has not at all times been adhered to. Nor is it absolutely binding on the people of the Territories to strictly adhere to it, if Congress will take favorable cognizance of these pre- liminary movements, for it is only a custom and if the people see fit to deviate from it and Congress does not object, it is just as binding as the other and more common practice.
 The most striking irregularity and departure from the usual routine, was in the case of California. In this in stance the convention was held in pursuance of a proclamation of the military Governor of the Territory.
 Now if so irregular a proceeding as this is recognized, why not the more regular and more popular course pro. vided by the 18th Legislature.
 | TUT ny OMh pilG l WOulu dlWdy first desire an expression from the people before taking the steps whicl the Legislature took.
 But whenever the people Cor Ina jority of them) petition the Legisla ture for an Act of this kind, think i an imperative duty of the Legislatur, to grant them their wishes by passin, bill providing for the holding of tn, convention.
 In our case, however, I think tn 10th was little too nasty, inasmuci as they had no such manifestation o the desires of the people upon thi question.
 They might say in reply to this tha the expression upon this question would come when the people elected their delegates and then either ac ! cepted or rejected the constitution promulgated by them.
 To this I would reply that after tn