Arizona republican., 1891-01-31
SIMPLY ,JOBBERY.

Says the Tucson Citizen: "The per sisteuCy with which few members of the Legislature insist upon abolishing the office of Attorney General on the ground of economy when there is no economy in it leaves room for suspicion that there is a Senegambian seCreted in the wood pile. The present salary of the Attorney Generals office is 5000 per annum. Suppose we adopt the proposition now being urged by prom inent Democrats to do away with the office and give the work to the District Attorney at $250 per case. Where would we come out? There are ten counties in Arizona with an immediate prospect of one more. Of these counties there is not one but has now at least one case for the Supreme Court. That alone would compute $250O. Apache has now seven cases and Pima three and no man can fortell what fruit will be born from the present legal muddle in which we find ourselves. Another item of expense to consider is mileage. Suppose the District Attorney of Yava- pal, Mohave or Apache found it neces- sary to try case in the Supreme Court. He must be allowed mileage via Los Angeles or Albuquerque to Phoenix, which in itself is no inconsiderable sum. In addition to this extra expense it is not the usual case that all District Attorneys possess the ability or legal knowledge to try weighty cases in which the Territory is party.
 "All told it is fair estimate to make that instead of the Territory paying 5000 per annnm for it's legal advisor, defender and prosecutor, it would have to pay with even what is now in sight, not less than $20,0OO. Is this economy and reform? Or is it job?
 "The fight that is being made against the office because of feeling against the present incumbent is senseless. Whether or not Clark Churchill is competent person for the position; whether or not he has used the office for personal or party ends; whether or not he has ne- gected his duties, cuts no figure in the controversy as to the value of the office. The personal spleen of no man should be considered in the question. When Governor ZulCk found the office of Attorney-General it was drawing the modest and unpretentiOus salary of 5000 per annum. This was considered insufficient for the dignity and possible cost of living of the chief counsellor and legal light to his excellency. So the salary was increased to 5000 and Briggs Goodrich appointed. Now, because the office is held by Clark Churchill, between whom and the eX- Democratic chief executive there exists burning fzzling feud or because it will be held by some Republican ap- pOintee if 1t continues to exist; or be- cause there are ten district attorneys who will be able to retire from active life at the expiration of their terms, if they could draw from the Territorial exchequer S25J for every case which they could appeal; or for some reason not made plain, but alleged to be economy and reform, this office is to be abolished and inducements offered to have the Supreme Court reeking with appeal at S250 each.
 Friends, Arizonans, Countrymen Such reform is stench to honest men. It is the reform of Boss Tweed. It is skull duggery. It is a brazen piece of impu- dence to presume that the people of Arizona are 30 credulous as to swallow it for reform.
 Gentlemen of the Legislature, the abolishment of the office of Attorney General will be a costly piece of economy. It will be gross dsCourtesy to Cover nor Irwin, who has a right to expect the same rights and privileges that was accorded his predecessors. It will, in short, seem very much of a job. We do not think the respectable Democratic element will vote for it's abolition when the vote is called.