Arizona republican., 1911-06-24
SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICTS
 SUSTAINED INTEGRITY
The Full Text of Recent Decision by
 Judge Kent.

On account of the importance of the matter and the deep interest in the subject taken in all parts of the territory. the late decision of Judge Kent. sustaining the special road dis tricts. in the case of the Glehdale Land company against the countj treasurer. is published in full. This was a test case brought by the plain ti:f to ocmpel the treasurer to pay a small claim which had been al- lowed by the trustees of special "oad district No. & The treasurer had withheld payment on the ground that. according to a decision by Judge Campbell the special districts mad been abolished by the act creating the office of county road superinten- dent. The decision follows:
 In the case of the Glendale Land company. by the revised statutes or 1901. the legislature provided. in re- gard to the repairs and maintenance of the county roads, system where bv the board of supervisors were authorized to divide the county into different districts and appoint iH each district a road Overseer who should have the charge of the repairs |" the roads under the immediate di ton of the board of supervisors. In 190I the legislature passed an act creating special road districts under the pro- visions of which, upon an apphca-
 tion by petition Of d certain number of people residing in the locality. d special road district might be OrgdE- iZed. the general effect of such stat ute being to place in the hands Of trustees the repairs and malntenaHoe Of the roads within that special dis trict and taking from the board "i
 supervisors and the road oVerSeers the control Of the maintenance Of the roads within that special district
 The board of trustees were given powers that were plenary with re- spect to the maintenance and repairs of the road, their functions and duties being quite similar to that of the school districts.
 Tn 1909 the legislature passed an act entitled An Act to Abolish the office of Road OVerseer and to Gre ate the office of County Superinten- dent of Roads and the question for determination in this case is whether or not that act of 1909 repealed the act of 1907 so as to abolish the spe-
 ciaI road districts and tO place the care and maintenance of the roads in those districts in the hands Of the board of supervisors through the county superintendent of roads, and
 take them away from the trustees in such special road districts Of course,
 in the construction of a statute 1t IS the duty of the court to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. but the court has no
 power to substitute it's Judgment of
 the intent of the legislature or io
 give effect to an intent unless that intent can be clearly shown from the
 provisions of the act. Now. this act
 of 1909 is broad enough tO include
 in it's terms these special road dis
 trictS The provision k that a com
 potent person shall he appointed ny
 the board of supervisors in each
 county who shall have charge of the
 public roads and highways In tha
 county. The language used IS br"ac enough to include the roads embraced
 within the special road districts
 There is no clause in the act repeal
 ing the act of 1907 creating the spe-
 cial road drstiicts; there is the gen.
 eraI provision that all acts and parts
 of acts in conflict with the provis-
 ions of the law of 1909 are repeaied-
 Therefore. unless the act itself bears
 evidence Of the intent of the leg;sla-
 ture. the judgment of the court must be that the get of 1909 repeale7 the act of 1907 But a consideration 1f the act leads me tO the belief tl;2t the act itself bears evidence of the intent of the legislature with respect to this question. There are certain eighteen or nineteen different para graphs of the laws of 1901 that ar" expressly repealed by this act ci 1909: there are some eight or 1;u@ paragraphs of the laws of 1901 tha. are expressly amended by this act of 1909 All the way through the act, noticing the paragraphs of the laws | of 1901 that have been repealed and | the paragraphs that have DeaI | amended, the intent of the legislature seems to be to substitute for the road 1 overseer in the different districts ere  | ated by the board of supervisors ;hiS | county superintendent of roads and lH | take from the somewhat irresponsible, | and certainly varied. management 'f | the roads in the different districts s) | created by the board, from the var | ous road Overseers and place it in the hands of one competent person known as the county superintendehI of roads.
 l Now. bearing in mind the vari- | ous repcals of the various paragrap phs | Of the revised statutes and the | language of the act of 1909 with re- | spect to the amendments Of other | paragraphs, for example, where para | graph 3961 of the laws of 1901 is | amended by striking out the words | road overseer' in the first line and ! substituting the words county super Il intendent of roads, and in the same ! way in paragraphs 39S0 and 39S2. II substituting the words county super II ntendent of roads for road over | seers,' and paragraph 59S3, similar II provision of substitution: and bear | ing in mind the fact that no ref erence whatever is made to the act | of 1907 creating the special road dis Y tricts. it seems to me that the intent II pf in. lpoiSIatura may he clearly