The Pioche record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1908-1925, 1911-05-27
Commercial Club Replies 10 Governor Oddie's Letter.

sage. but we believe that you
like all other human beings, are
capable of error. At the same time,
we congratulate you that thus far
In your administration your errors,
In our judgement, have been com
inendaDly few. Our position Is.
First-That the matter of Great
ing counties, determining their bonn
daries. and adjusting their obligations
with other political bodies, is an in
herent attribute of politi al
sovereignty vested in the state,ahd
by the state constitutionally delegat-
TO the legislative branch of the
government as are all purely polit-
ical attributes of government tAa
the state, through the legislature, has
the exclusive and complete power
to create and dissolve, change by
segregation, cor solidatio-, or cth
wise, any county or counties within
It's boundaries, and to prescribe the
terms Of such creation, dissolution.
or change, and that, by the operation
Of the constitution this power rests
exclusively with the legislature;
that the legislature may exercise this
power at will; that such power, being
political rather than civil, cannot
be judicial but is strictly and purely
legislative; that by one act the leg
islature may segregate lincoln
and Clark counties, for example, an
provide that Lincoln shall own all
county rr'per.y within the new
w created boundaries and shall pe
Clark county sum equiva'ert to the
value CT it's eqvitatle pro rata por-
tien CT such property, say $4,000,
and may, by subsequent act,
require Clark county to repay Lin
coin every dollar paid to Clark in
conformity with the previous act;
"a forticri, when the original act Is
silent as to whether Clark shall pay
Lincoln sny part CT the floating In
|debtednesa existing at the time cf
the county division. and no impair
ment OF obligation or title involv-
ed, 1t Is certainly within the power
CT the legislature to provide that
Clark county shall ray to Lincoln
county proper. equitable, portion of
such floating Indebtedness; that
the principles CT the common law
and the rules of equity, whose prov
ince it Is to govern the adjudication
CT civil and criminal matters when
the statutes are insufficient as a
basis for adjudica tion, are never APP
plicable to the settlement of matters
between political bodies, such as
counties, because, firstly, tn DR. sole
administration is constitution
ally Judicial, involving no questions
1r governmental policy, and, secondly,
because there are no princip es Of
common law or equity which, in
their nature, are applicable to the
conditions CT fact involved in adjust
ments between political bodies.
See 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law
page, 915; II Cyc. of Law and Pro-
cedure, page 357; Commrs. of Lar
annie Co. vs.. Commrs. of Albany
Co (U. S. Sup. Court so U. s. 307;
cuy Council Of City and County Of
enver vs.. Beard of Commrs. Of Ad-
ans Co tsup. Court of Colo.) n
Pac. S5S. Riverside Co. vs.. San Ber-
nardino Co. (Sup Court Of Calif.)
Sc Pac. 7S8.
Secondly the Overwhelming
weight of authority, the rule in the
United States is that, by subsequent
legislation, moral obligation ex-
isting in favor of county from
which a new county has been cary
ed may be created into legal OBJ
legation, and that such subsequent
legislation may be passed whenever
the legislature becomes cognizant o.
the moral obligation,
See z Am & Eng. Enc. Of Law,
page s19; II Cyc. OF Law and Pro
cedure. page 357, footnote 16; Com
! mrs. of Leramie Co. VS.. Ccmmrs. Al
bany Co. 90 U. s, 307; Perry Co. vs
Conway Co. 81 Ark 430; Richland Co
VS.. Lawrence Co. IL. Ils. 8; p
vs.. Alameda Co. 26 Cal 642; Sedge'
wick Co. vs. Bunker, 16 Kan. 49S;
Board of Education vs.. State 81 Pae
I $50; Riverside CO. VS.. San Bernardine
Co. (CaD 66 Pac 1888; City Council
of City and Co. Of Denver vs.. Board
Of Commrs. of Adams Co. (Coloo y
4 Pac. 858.
| We have been able to find but on'
case, Hampshire Co. VS.. Franklin Co.
lac Mas. SO, holding against our con
tention, and, from the fact that
is in 16 Mass. Reports, we knew
that its place is IN ancient rathel
than in modern Jurisprudence, an'
we are convinced that it is impos
slbie. within the confines q the Re
public, or anywhere, to discover
single case decided by a court Q
last resort Of any state within th
United States, or of the Federal soS
( ernment, within the past 30 years
which is contrary to our contention
" The constitutions Of Idaho and 20
e orado. and doubtless Of many othe
j states, require, upon the diNisio