Bisbee daily review., 1913-01-10
GIVES STATUS
 PRECINCT CASE
Attorney for Old Officials in Statement Advances His Arguments for Hold
 ing Over
SHOWS CONFIDENCE

The filing Of an appeal bond by Justice High was the only new deyel. osiment in the precinct case yester day. H. W. Thomas, newly appoint. ed justice Of the peace has not yet made q demand for the court records from Justice High and il is under stood that no action in this matter will be taken until the final action Of the supreme court on the matter Local attorneys believe that the su- preme court will decide the case this month. but not within the next few days
 There seems to he some confusion regarding the status of the old pre- ciuct officers" said J w. Ross one O. the attorneys for the precinct of iicers. yests rday. The matter is. however. quite plain. The old off cars are the de facto officers and they have the authority to receive and do business as in the past. am confident that the case will be de. court The supreme court is a pure ly non-political body and they Sill decide the case on it's merits"
 Ross Makes Statement.
 In a resume Of the whole case, Mir. Ross dictated the following: The ease is that of the State Of Arizona, or the complaint Of County Attorney ". c. Gilmore. vs. NJ. C. High and is an action to try title tO office. lt is brought in the name of the county attorney and is a friendly suit to de- teTmine the constitutiOnality of Chap. z2. session laws or Arizona.
 By the provisions Of Chap. 42, in the counties where the boards Of su- pervisors have re-distTicted the coun- ties into justice precinct. all precinct officers will go out of office on Ian uary |, 1913. That is to say, if Chap. 42 is constitutional Tn Cochisa county the board of supervisors re districted the county into justice pre- cincts on the first Monday in Septem- Der. 1912 and on the third day Of January. 1913. The beard appoint cd precinct officers to fill the newly created precincts Chap. 42 does moi provide who shall appoint the con stables CT justices of the peace 70 fill the newly created precincts.
 Is Unconstitutional
 Tn the suit of the state against M. C. High the defendant claims that Chap. 42 is in conflict with sections C and 1G of article 22 of the constitu- ton of Arizona and is in conflict with section II, article of the consiitu- tion. and is therefore unconstitution- al and void That Chap. 42 is also in conflict with the thirteenth amend ment of the constitution of the United States and is therefore unconstitu- tional and void This is for the req son that it provides for the removal of officers whose terms are fixed, V ithout hearing or notice. UEdel .he laws of Arizona no officer may | be removed from his office except for cause other than by the recall. In other words, that an officer may be removed from his office il exchanges his residence from his county or pre- cinct or it he removes from the state permanently; or he may loose his office if convicted Of felony or other crime, but under no circum- i stances can be be removed from or ice when his term of office is liked and he is an elective and constitu itional officer. except as provided by
 law. In other words. the legislature I cannot create a vacancy in the con stitutional office where the term oi office is fixed by the constitution. The office of justice of the peace is a con
 stitutional and elective office and the term of office is fixed for two years under the constitution.
 Quotes Osborne Case.
 @Our state supreme court. in the 1 Osborne case. held that: Precinct of- ncers are in the same situation as all the other officers created by the
 state constitution. They were in of. fee on the date of admission Of the state into the Union and by virtue Of section 6, article 22. they continue
 in office until their successors have
 euaIifed. No election for such of
 fees was held in 1912 for the reason
 that the Enabling Act. and ordinance No. 2. tailed to provide for the cleo tion of precinct officers. The consti