Arizona republican., 1898-01-05

ternal affairs; and because of thiA last
 provision it is insisted that theK'
 bonds are invalid
 l Admitting that to be the case, for 1 the sake of argument, we contend: Q.) That congress had the power
 to validate them.
 In National Bank V. County of
 Yankton: 101 U s. Coop. 1047, the
 court said:
 Congress may not only abrogate | laws of the territorial legislatures, but i it may itself legislate directly for the local government It may make a
 void act of the territorial legislature
 valid and valid act void. In ether
 words, it has full and complete legis-
 lative authority over the people of the 1 territories and all of the departments of the territorial government. It may do for the territories what the people
 under the constitution of the United l States may do for the states" | In recent case in the district court | of Yavapai county, entitled Black vs.
 Vickers, the plaintiff was seeking to
 cause Vickers, the auditor, to issue
 warrant for an allowance made to
 one Wolfiey by a special appropriation
 of the territorial legislature in favor of Wolfey on account of expenses by 1 him incurred in effecting congressional
 legislation on the subject of the fund | ing act, and the defendant pleaded,
 among other things, that the approp-
 riation created a debt which was vio- lative of the Harrison act in that it increased the indebtedness beyond the limit allowed by that act, and the 1 trial court, in passing upon that | voh oft of vi
 to the act of congress of June 6, 1896, said:
 ''It seems to me clear that it was l the purpose and intent of congress to l validate the class of obligations of
 which act number 2S is one as well as that class of obligations mentioned
 warrants and other evidences of in l debtedness."
 These expressions of the courts of last resort would seem to be final on | the question as to the power of con- 1 gross, and this raises the second branch of this question, to-wit: CD Has congress, by legislation, as a matter of fact, validated said bonds? 1 Taking it for granted that Kitchen
 & Company are the owners for value
 of 203 of said bonds, and some other person, to defendants unknown, are
 the owners of any which remain of the original issue, the same having 1 been sold and exchanged and by their present owners bought in the opsn
 markets of the world-and that is
 prima facie as result of Kitchen & | Company, in the case of themselves
 against Yavapai county in the district
 court thereof, see: Coler vs. Board of | c. c. 27 Pac. Rep. N. M. 619 Q3). | The answer to this question is found
 in history of this congressional leg l islation of which the court will take 1 judicial knowledge.
 In 1885 the territorial eg;slature
 empowered plaintiffs supervisors to
 issue what are known as the P. & A. | c. bonds, in order to enable the rail-
 road company to construct railroad 1 from the A. & F. line to Prescott
 strictly in accordance with the terms and requirements of that act of the | leg. stature. The railroad was con-
 structed and the bonds issued to it as it earned them, and its cOnstruc-
 tion and completion resulted in large l ly increasing the assessed valuation l of property in Yavapai county, and l it became-and continued to be until
 about 1893-one of the largest tax 1 payers in said county, and in these two facts are found the valuable con
 sideration for the payment and de-
 livery of these bonds to the railroad
 company, if any were necessary. That to enable the parties receiv-
 ing said bonds to dispose of them in
 the markets of the world and thus realize money with which to construct
 said railroad, very large number of l Continued on Eighth Page.)