Arizona republican., 1898-01-05

county their fu1d1ng may be had without any report from the county or any demand made therefor to the loan commission for the following reasons, to-wit: (a.) The congress sional act of June 25, 1890, U. s. Stat. At L., volume 26-175-is divided in- to four distinct subjects:
 A. Funding territorial indebted ness.
 B. Funding county indebtedness.
 c. Conduct of the treasurer after bonds are issued, and
 D. Section 15, paragraph 2052, dis tinctly states:
 That the present existing and out standing Indebtedness, together with" etc., "may also be funded and bonds issued for the redemption thereof"
 A careful reading of the subdivision of that act referring to funding of county indebtedness beginning at the words, "The boards of supervisors of the counties" in paragraph 2048, and ending with the words, ''territory on such bonds," will show that the re- port of the county to the loan com missioners and the demand for fund ing is confined to such indebtedness in the hands of the county itself which it wants funded for it's own purposes and for which it wishes ter ritorial funding bonds ,and this is made clearer when the section of para graph 2052 above referred to is read.
 This congressional act of June 25, 1S9G, is distinctly made Subject to future territorial legislation" and the territorial legislature, by act of March 19, 1891,-which was passed "to carry out the purpose and intention of said act of congress" s"-requires "that the loan commissioners of the territory of Arizona provide for the funding of the indebtedness existing and out standing on the 31st of December, 1890. of the territory and counties"
 Congress extended the provisions of the act of June 25, 1890, by the act of August 3, 1894, and then, on June 6, 1896, GU. s. statutes at Vol. 29, page 262) extended and amended both of said preceding acts; and, in the first part thereof, provides that "all out standing obligations of the territory and counties and all outstanding bonds of the territory and counties heretofore authorized by legislative enactments of said territory, bearing higher rate of interest that per cent, which have been sold or ex- changed in good faith, in compliance with the terms of the act of the legis- lature by which they were authorized, shall be funded" and neither the act of the territorial legislature nor this act of congress in any wise makes it a condition precedent that such bonds should be reported and their funding demanded by the county. The plain ard only purpose of requiring a report from the county and a demand upon the loan commissioners for funding, was to arrange tax relations and pre- pare for the payment of interest on the funding bonds issued, etc. At worst or best-if the report and demand was required-it could only be direct ory, as no report or emand of Yava- pal county could add to or take from the validity of its solemn obligation signed by it's proper officers and de- livered to the person for whom it was intended.
 Nor could it be conte1ded that it was the purpose of congress to clothe the debtor with the power to finally pass upon the :dity of it's own debt and thus become the final arbiter of it's creditors rights.
 Admitting for the sake of argument that the report of plaintiffs super visors and their demand upon the loan commission was a condition prece- dent to the funding, our answer is:
 (a) As to the 203 bonds funded to Kitchen & Company, they did so re- port and so demand on November IS, 1896. As to any other of the P. & A. c. bonds we are not advised.
 (b.) It may be said that the plain tiff's supervisors, on the 5th of De- cember, 1896, rescinded it's former ac- tion. We answer that it's efforts so to do was informal and nugatory- even if it had had the power to pass such resolution-and we insist that it had no such power, because, having made the report and the demand and having furnished the same to Kitchen T; & Company, they Ritchen & Com pany) acquired-if the act of the su- pervisors was at all necessary-cer- tain rights then and there of which they could not thus be arbitrarily de- prived, and, acting on the rights so acquired, Kitchen & Company, on No vember 30, 1896, immediately pre- scented that report and demand to the loan commissioners, and of them de- manded the funding Of their bonds. The board of supervisors, being a legislative and quasi judicial body, whose action and power is limited and controlled by statutes, having once acted in this matter, and Kitchen & Company having acted upon it's ac- tion, could not, in the absence of any fraud or deception, arbitrarily rescind itsaction.
 AS to the question whether or not these P. & A. c. bonds, so-called-the 203 of them belonging to Kitchen & Company, before they were funded and any number there may be of the ! original issue in existence not fund ed-were, at the time of the applica- tion to fund the same, valid, outstand- ing indebtedness and obligations of plaintiff, raises two questions:
 Q.) Admitting for the sake of ar gument that at the time of their origi- nal issuance said bonds were invalid if you please, null and void-had con-