Arizona silver belt., 1897-05-27
THE ARIZONA STOCK LAW.

we read his masterly editorials we are reminded of Goldsmith's lines describ- ing the village scboolmaster: "The village all declared how much be knew; Twas certain he could write, and cypher, too, While words Of learned length and laundering
 sound
 Amas sd the gsslng r,isiies ranged around Ana s;in they ga1ed, aud s,in the wondergrew That one small head could carry all he knew, "
 There are, however, several sections of the new law which we are unable to reconcile with provisions of the consti- tuition of the United States and the or ganic law of the territory. For ox- ample:
 Section a5, of the stock law, pro- vides.
 "No brands, except such as are re- corded under the provisions of this act, shall be recognized in law as any osi- dence of ownership of the horses, mules, asses or neat cattle upon which such brand may be used. "
 And section 50 provides;
 "Whenever any live stock branded with any brand not duly recorded as required by the provisions of this act shall be found at large on any range in this territory, the same shal: be re- ported to the said board by any duly authorized inspector and detective therefor, and shall be considered as unclaimed live stock, and shall he dis posed of ss now provided ny law for the disposition of unclaimed live stock.
 In this connection Mr. Pugh has said editorially:
 "All cattle, the brands of which do not appear npon said terri'oriasl brand book, will be seized aud the pro- ceeds of the sale of which will he turned into the sanitary board, to winch the alleged owners will have to make application, and to get such pro ceeds will have to prove their property, which is not always an easy matter to do. Unless their brand is then first put on record they will have no chance at recovery"
 The Stockmnn and the SILVER BELT are, singularly, in accord on this point, viz; That the law contemplates the coufscation of all live stock in the ter ritory, the brands on which have not been recorded in the territorial brand book.
 Now, what does the constitution of the United States say? Ant. XIV. Sec. of the constitution declares:
 "No state shall make or enforce my law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty CT property without due process oi law.
 Will the Stockman please inform its readers whether the provisions of the constitution of the United States and the AIizons live stock law, as quoted above, conflict, ard if in its opinion they do, whether it would not be ad- visable to convene the Nineteenth leeis- | lature in extra session to repeal the constitution of the United States?
 One more illustration of the con [ trariety of the Arizona live stock lev viii suffice:
 Section 76 provides Justices of the peace within their respective counties, within the limits of thsir jurisdiction, shall have cognizance of all cases arising under the provisions of this act.
 Wonder if tue above is a lapsus cslami of Billy Barnes, whom rumor says drafted the Bull Tick law for his | friend Cameron (for consideration? Or, perhaps, we arc doing our friend Pugh an injustice in not giving him the credit of it, since he IS so well yersed iu COW law?
 Sections 26, 2S, % and 43 of the same law provide penalties for infrac- ton of various provisions, the max imum fines ranging from $500 to s5000
 Under section 76 (quoted above) jus fices of the peace aie given jurisdiction in all cases arising under the above mentioned sections and that jurisdic- ton is exclusive, as it is not conferred upon auy other court Therefore, the l district courts have DO cognizancc ex- cept in cases arising under the statues governing grand larceny, which are not repealed by the revised live stock law.
 Now, how does this comport with the Organic Act and the Arizona code?
 Section 1927, Organic Act of Ari. zona, limits the jurisdiction of justices of the peace 10 matters iu controversy where the debt or sum claimed does not exceed S300, and
 Paragraphs 6l4 and GIG, chapter 5, of tue code, limits the fine in all cases tried in justices courts to $500 and terms of imprisonment to one year.
 In this connection it is also perti- nent to remark that indictments for crime are found by grand juries. Query: Can justice of the peace summon a grand iuryf
 Ruf narhana when the Tin Horn