Arizona republican., 1912-07-16

i in the premises is illegal. and the 1 judgment of the Superior Court 1 should be reversed and the tempo rary injunction heretofore issued should be made permanent by order of this court. l It will be seen that the matter pre- scented calls upon this court to per l form it's gravest function, that of | looking at the language of an act written by delegated authority in i the light of language written by the sovereign itself, and declaring which | language shall speak authority, that i of the representatives of the people [ or that of the people themselves. It | is a duty that this court will not ! shirk or evade. It's judges are sworn i to support the Constitution of the 1 State of Arizona and faithfully and l impartially discharge the duties of | judge to the best of their ability 1 This duty we shall perform at all 1 times while we have the honor to sit on the bench, against all encrOach-
 ments from any source, but in a manner, we trust, befitting the high lest tribunal of the State. It may l be urged through sinister design or from selfish motives that this court should refuse to pass upon the mat ter presented for the reason that it is political and not a judicial ques-
 tiOn. We feel persuaded that no lawyer of standing at the bar would so assert on giving the matter con- sideratiOn.
 1 The SupesiOr courts have jurisdic- tiOn in all causes and of all proceed ings in which jurisdiction shall not i have been vested exclusively in some other court. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all ac- tions and proceedings except a civil action to recover money or property where the original amount in con- ] troversy does not exceed the sum of ] $200.00. Our courts are not divided into courts of equity and courts of common law Jurisdiction. as is the case in those jurisdictions whose au- | thorities, if superficially considered.
 would lend color to the view that icourts will not decide questions of a political nature The Jurisdiction in law and in equity under our scheme of government is blended in one court which may give appropriate Judgment in all cases according to the law and the facts as they may arise.
 The superior courts of the State are not limited to the ordinary in- junction in equity, the scope and pur- jpose of which is limited to matters involving property or civil rights. but the prerOgative writ of injunction
 may be resOrted to in all cases nec-
 essary to preserve the sovereignty of
 the State, it's prerOgatives and fran
 chises This matter is reviewed and
 the distinction made is very clearly
 pointed out in Case Note-Lawyers
 Reports Annotated Vol. 3 (N. S.) D.
 382. Matters pertaining to the cleo
 ton of public officers are the very highest prerOgatives of the State and
 no officer of the State may proceed
 in such matter without authority of
 law for his action.
 The constitutionality of an act of the legislature, although it may de-
 termine the legality of holding an
 election and thereby have a political 7 effect. is strictly a judicial question.
 For whether the act is within the
 limits of it's delegated power or not
 is a strictly judicial question to be
 decided by the courts, and in no
 sense political. This principle is de-
 
 doctrine was forcibly announced by the Supreme Court of the United
 States, speaking through Chief Jus , tice Fuller in the case ofMcPherson V. Btacker, 146 U. S Reports, D. l.
 Chief Justice Fuller said:
 "It is argued that the subject mat ) ter of the controversy is not of judi cial cognizance because it is said aI } election of a presidential elector are } political in their nature; that the court has no power finally to dis
 pose Of them and that it's decision l would subject tn .2*itV ny poll
 tical officers and agencies, as the ) state board of canvassers. the legis-
 lature in joint convention. and the 7 governor or finally, the Congress The question of the validity of this act. as presented to us by this record, is a judicial -ques- 5 ton, and we cannot decline the ex- ercise of our jurisdiction upon the 7 nadmissible suggestion that action
 might be taken by political agencies Q in disregard of the judgment of the 1 highest tribunal of the State as re- | vised by our own
 r Tn State V. Cunningham, S1 Wis : 40, it is said:
 c "The truth is that the power of
 the respondent to notify elections is = in no just sense whatever political; a and in view of the purely ministerial q nature of his duty, it is a misuse of n terms to assert that his power or
 duty is in any sense political The n act he is required, as a ministerial = officer. to assist in executing by giv e ing notice. is the result of legislative Is power. and therefore. it may be said p of political power; but this does not If make the act required of the respon- II dent. in giving or refusing to give the notices, which is a mere conse- 'e quence of the exercise of politica e. power a political act, so as to pre- if vent judicial examination of his con- e duct in acting or refusing to act fol l. that reason, if the law is void fol l. conflict with the constitution. Were Id the case otherwise, nc act of the leg F.! Continued on Page 5.)