The Florence tribune., 1897-06-05
The Arizona Stock Law.
From the Globe Silver Belt

laws. Pugh's legal kpowledqs and acu- men are really astonishing, and when we read lis masterly editorials we are reminded of Goldsmith's lines describ, ing the village schoolmaster ,,, rhe village all declared how much he ,,rev
 f'a'n he could write and cypher too. ny. ', "H''s words of learned length and thunder Amazed the gazing rustics faneed around : AHu sun shey gazed, and still the wonde That one small head could carry all Is
 There are, However, several seesiors of the new law which we are ,inable t reconcile with provisions of the cons.l tuition of the United States and the {, ganic law of the Territory. For es ample
 Section 45 of the stock law sro. vides:
 "No brands, except such as are re- corded under the provisions of this st, shall be recognized in law as my sgi- dence of ownership of tf mules, asses or neat cattle upon whaal such brand may be used"
 And section 50 provides:
 Whenever any live stock brandec 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 shall be re ported to the said board by any dhly authorized inspector and detective therefor, and shall be considered as unclaimed live stock, and shall be dis posed of as now provided by 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 upon said (Territorial) brand book, will be seized and the proceeds of the sale of which will be turned into the sanitary board, to which 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 Stock-nan and the Silver Belt are, singularly, in accord on this point, viz: That the law eoDtemplates the confscation 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 say2 Art. XIV, Sec. 1, of the Constitution declares:
 'No State shall make or enforce any law which sf1ail aJIidgv tLe r-s--sassg-s or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life; liberty or property WlbifOut QuC pIOCCcS Ol ldNs
 Win the Stoclman please inform it's readers whether the provisions of the Consultation of the United States and the Arizona live stock law, as quot ed above, conflict, and if in it's opinion they do, whether it would not be ad- visable to convene the Nineteenth Leg islature in extra session to repeal the Constitution of the United States?
 One more illustration of the con trarity of the Arizona live stock law will suffice:
 Section 76 provides:
 "Justices of the Peace, within theif own counties, within the limits of their jurisdiction, shall have cognizauce of all cases arising under the provisions of this act"
 Wonder if the above is 8 lapsus calami of Billy Barnes, whom runor says drafted the Bull Tick law for his friend Cameron (for consideration Or, perhaps, we are doing our friend Pugh an injustice in not giving him the credit for it, since he is so well versed in COW law?
 Sections 26, 28, % and 43 of the same law provide penalties for infraction oi various provisions, the maximum fines ranging from $500 to 5000.
 Under section 76 Quoted above) jus tices of the peace are given jurisdiction in all cases arising Under the above mentioned sections and that jurisdie- tion is exclusive, as it is not conferred upon any other court. Therefore; tise district courts have no cognizance lex- 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 Arizona, limits the jurisdiction of justices Of the peace to matters in controversy where the debt or sum claimed does not exceed $500, and
 Paragraphs GA and SIS, chapter 5, of the code, limits the fine in all eases tried in justices courts to $500 and terms of imprisonment to one year.
 T. x1..- oa..-oo+:o,, # ie ole0 11Qftineflt t