Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1907-03-04
PHOENIX. ARIZ.. MARCH I. 1907.
COUNCIL BILL -.

Inc leSlSlaIlon involved IN the pas
sage Of council bill - cannot be de-
scribed as freak or vicious" legis-
lation, but We believe that most per-
sons when they come to consider it
dispassionately Will agree that it was
unusual and we may say unfortunate
We know nothing Of the rights Of Mr.
Cameron and the Santa Fe e Grand
Canyon railway in the Bright Angel
trail except what was gathered from
the statements before the committed
Of the attorneys from the two sides
Anyway it would be improper 10 dis
cuss those rights the settlement Of
which il now pending in the courts
and in this connection it might appear
that it would be equally improper for
the legislature TO discuss or affect
those rights during the tendency Of
the litigation.
As We understand it though the
railway company has asserted no right
Of proprietorship but has contended
for itself, the travelling public and the
whole community that Mr Cameron
has no right of proprietorship.
But as to the merits Of these con-
tentions we have nothing to say though
the claims made on the part Of CO.
conino county as a third party may
properly be considered. Attorney Cen
eral Clark appeared in the case on the
part Of the county in favor of the
bill. while the district attorney Of the
county appeared against it right
ly claiming that though the bill
would prevent the extinguishment Of
the county's title 10 the trail. it ac-
tually provided no means by which
the county could profit 10 the extent
Of 4 pesny by the proposed confirma-
ton Of its title.
Many persons familiar with the liti-
CATION Will associate the appearance
Of the attorney general I'm the case
with his earlier connection with it in
his capacity as attorney fo- Mr.. Cam
eron. This association will be
strengthened by the contention Of Dis
trict Attorney Ashurst that the bill
advocated by the attorney general is
not the best thing for Coconino coun-
~. So, the attitude % the attorney
general toward the bill whether prop
er or improper must be more or less
embarrassing 10 the administration.
But the really unfortunate thing
about the whole affair is the Iegisla-
tive Interference with the courts. It
IS not to be asserted that legislatures
are 10 be bound by court decisions
since it Is the business of the courts
10 interpret laws while it is the bust
ness Of legislatures to make them
But laws are made in accordance with
public policy. It cannot he contend
ed that council bill - serves any pub
lie policy. Il is asserted on one side
and not denied on the other that the
only object of The bill is to invest
Mr.. Cameron with certain rights which
the supreme court decided a year ago
he did not have under the existing
law.
That is. the bill was drawn to amend
the present law in such a manner as
TO put Mr.. Cameron in a more adj
vantageous position than he had been
found in by the courts II is unnec-
essary 90 enter into the details Of its
accomplishment. but tho special char
acter Of the legislation may be illus
trated by mentioning an act Of v1o-
lence upon the English language found
necessary. The bin purporting to
amend the law with reference to toll
roads made "trail' and toll road"
Synonymous when they had been held
by the courts. the dictionaries and
common acceptance 10 be- not In like
manner every point in the present law.
found by the courts tc be unfavor-
able TO the interests Of Mr.. Cameron.
We're changed SO as to conform to his
interests and FIR no other purpose.
As we have said that while the
legislature has been IN this matter
wholly within its authority we believe
that every member OF the legislature
will agree with the proposition that
the rights Of citizens are TO be pro-
tected under the law but that special
privileges are not 20 De created by
law.
We leave out o. consideration al
together the question whet er or not