Bisbee daily review., 1903-08-14
THE OPINIONS OF MILLER.

this paper, as a rule, takes of its hat to his legal opinions, but 10 lawyer Or judge either for that matter, desires to reverse himself. Once they have decided or giyensan opinion on any subject. it usually takes a decision of the supreme court of the United States to dislodge them from their position.
 MT. Miller, a few months ago rem dered an opinion touchingsupon the le- gality of the salaries of the council men. In Tuesdays Miner MT. Miller stands pat. That was to be expected. The Review knew that counsel would not reverse himself That would have been expecting too much and would have placed the learned attor- ney in the. position of giving two diff. ferent opinions in as many months.
 A few days ago this same attorney took occasion to go before the coun- cil when the gas franchise was up be- fore that body for consideration. At some length MT. Miller pointed out. in clear and forcible manner, the law embodied in Act s1 of the last legisla- ture. But the council would have none of it. In fact they passed Mil Ter and his opinions up like a white check" Now the same attorney is ut with an opinion on different question. one in which each member. )f the council is interested. Will the same body ct men turn flown an opin- lon from the same man in one instance md in the next accept another opinion $ the conclusive law on the subject? The council showed that it did rot respect the opinions of Miller on the franchise question. Will they accept his opinion on another subject as noth- ng but the law? We shall sec.
 Attorney Miller in his opirior on he question of salaries steps aside 'ong enough to quote fools step .n where angels fear to tread" or some hing 10 that effect If this 'be true VI p. Miller has classed as fools and enorants some of the bes' la"J "Jers in his .erritory. notably A. C. Baker, ex- chief justice of Arizona; Owen. T.. 7ouse. ex-judge of the seconi judicial istrict in Arizona; John c. Hern- on one of the foremost lawyers c. his territory. and W. C. Mcfarland. of Graham county. who Is al present practicing in this county and whom ve believe 4 torney Mile will con ede is fairly good lawyer. These gre some of the fools" who have larel to rush in. Following is the -pinior of A. c. Baker on the ques- ton.
 Phoenix. Ariz.. Sept. 17. 1902. Editor of Bisbee Daily Review:
 am in receipt of your letter of re- cent date but or account of being ao- sent from the office failed to answer it until now. It is Tot necessary Tor me to give you any extensive opinion. I suppose, and I will briefly state that 1pou an examination of Par. 6O5. Art. 1O1. Title XI. Chapter Revised sat utes of Arizona. I am satisfied that the aldermen of an incorporated city under the title. have no right to vote themselves salaries unless salaries are expressly provided for in the act Of in- co~no-at.on. If the articles of in -o-poration fail to fix any salary, then he aldermen cannot by an ordinance 1x salaries for themselves. l think Oar eos absolutely prohibits sucn ,roeeedirgs. Very respectfully
 A. c. BAKER
 The Review is in possession or sew eral like opia.5ns all holding tnA game way. The question of salaries for councilmen is a question of law If the law fails to provide any salary they are clearly violating the statutes when by ordinance they provide sala- -ies for themselves.