The Arizona sentinel., 1896-11-14

that the court cannot hold that tc be unconscionable and inequitable which the Legislature has expressl, authorized and sanctioned.
 Is there an official duty of the SUD- erintendent involved?
 Thls inquiry embraces the relative powers of the Board of Control and the Superintendent of the prison We have just seen that the legislative act gives the Board the power to mak. the contract as we'll as 'full cortrol'' over the prison and inmates. In re- spect 10 the contract, the powers of the superintenden5 are necessarily subordin ,te to the powers of the Board. He has no power to question the exp diency policy, jndiciousness or advis ,bility of the legal acts of the Board or 10 disregard and set al nanght it's lawful promises, contracts and obligations. No statute gives 
 him this negative power. To the contrary, it is his otficlal lty to ob- serve the lawful directions and conn mands of the Board and to carry out its valil contracts. Such duty is q necessary incident to his office. Any other result would attribute to the legislature the stupidity of giving to the Board, the power to make the contract and to the Superintendent, the power to cancel 1t.
 Suppose this was proceedings by the Board to compel the Superintcnd ent to deliver the conyiets in &C., CT lance with the contr lct. Can it be seriously questioned but that his obet ,ience would be enforceI by the writ? Assuming that the Board could sue out the writ 10 enforce this duty, there can be no well-fOunded reason to deny the use of the same rrme ly to the party beneficially in- terested. The contract expressly re quireS rhe Superintendent to deliver the convict labor, an is to be con- strueI as direction from the Board in that respect; q direction or com mand from q superior to an inferior officer in immediate charge of the convicts, whose ministerial duty must i put the machinery in motion to exc cute the contract. The writ only i lies against the party whose legal duty it is to perform the act required an for this reason the BoIrI of Con tr"l is not a necessary party to this proceeding.
 No other remedy has been pointed out for the petitioner. In fact, there | none. He cannot sue the Territory for damages, since the Sovereign can not he proceeded against in it's own courts without It's consent.
 It is apparent that an action for specified performance could not be maintained. and even if it could be, that Is not such a remedy as is con- templated ny the statute. The exis tenre of an equitable remedy consti- tuteS no impeachment to the remedy ! by mlndamus.
 The other objections may be sum- marily dispo ell of. The Act of the Legislature authorizing the contract does not create q debt, and therefore is not in cnntravention of the "Harri s'n Act."' It apprnpriates sufficient sIm of the General Fund to carry out it's provisi pns. The appropriation is 1 to take elfe't as soon as the expen es are incurred, anl op rates in the nature of clsh paym mt. In other " 'rds, the appropriation anticipate s the expenses and discharges them as they ari-e.
 The act creates no special privilege or privileges; it is general in it's terms and empowers the Board to make such d contract with any responsible peIs'n or persons "
 No court may impose 'hard labor" as condition of punishment, unless such power he specified by statute i; but this doctrine has no application to the leasing out of convict labor un- der legislative authority. The con viction of tue prisoners has subject them to constitu ional, involuntary elvitude, and their labor and the pro- ceeds of 1t belong to the Territory, and may be diSpo ed of in such ws as the legisla ure, in its discretion, may ceternline and to provide for the leasing hereof is, unques ionably. "a rishtful subject of legislation" within the meaning of our Organic Law.
 The act is criticised as being inn polite, but the judiciary can only ar rest the execution of statute when It plainly conflicts with some Consti tutional provision. It will not run q race of opinions upon points of right, re son and expediency with the legis- lature The act is. therefore, valid