The Parker post., 1915-05-01
NOT A PATENTED NAME.

between the friends and antagonists
of the state administration over the
public land question, We would ike
to cut away one section OF the brush
in order that the cOmbatants may see
one another more clearly and that
they may get at one another with
greater facility We would remove
from among the matters in dispute
the question whether the state lana
commission exists in violation OF, or
without the authority of the enabling
act.
The matter of it's existence With
out the authority of the enabling act
may be dismissed at once as having
nothing to do with the case, for none
of the interested machinery of the
state is authorized or is pretended to
be authorized by the act; neither the
land commission nor the tax commls-
sion. nor the livestock sanitary board
nor any of the state offices.
Then, We come to the question OF
a conflict between the act OF the
legislature, creating the land commits
sion and the enabling act, creating
a commission (not a land commits
sion), but commission, consisting
of the governor, the attorney general
one other person for single definite
purpose, that of selecting the lands
granted to the state by the act; that
and nothing more. There is no con-
flict at all. The duties Of the state
land commission do not include the
act of selecting the lands; that must
be performed under the land commits
sion statute as we'll as under the en-
abling act, by the governor, the at
torney general and the state engineer
If the two bodies have been given
different names; say, if the state
commission had been called a board,
this question regarding its right to
exist would not have been raised.
What either is called The enabling
act did not patent or copyright the
title which it gave to the commission
created and designated by it.
The enabling act, besides naming
the commission to select the lands,
describes certain things that shall be
tD1
lands. But, after having placed these
limitations, it turns the whole busi-
ness Of the administration Of lands
over to the state, ,ald the state con-
stitution placed the business in the
hands Of the legislature which, hav-
ing laid down laws for the admins
tration of the lands, may provide for
their execution, through a board or
commission of any number Of mem
bers or through a single commission
er, as the legislature of New Mexico
has done.
The first Arizona legislature Gre
ated land commission of three mem
bers to carry out such laws as the
legislature had enacted with refer
ence to these lands, but all these
laws were and must be subservient
to the requirements of the enabling
act. The duties of actually selecting
the lands were left, for instance, to
the board designated by the enabling
act for that purpose. The state land
commission exercised the powers
which the legislature could delegate
to it, and, in addition, was author
lied to do what the governor and
the attorney general and the state
engineer might have authorized any
body to do-to investigate the lands
and make recommendation regarding
their selection. 1t was hardly con-
templated by the enabling act that
the governor and his associates on
5 the commission should visit the mil
lions Of acres of land in person. 1t
was not enjoined upon them to visit
the lands at all. 1t was a matter
lett entirely to the state, and it must
nave been presumed that the state
would take means to make the most
Judicious selections
1t must have been the notion of
congress that the state would adopt
some sort of a land policy and, GER
talnly, this policy would have to he
carried out by some executive body
or officer 1t was immateriaI to con-
gress what We might call this body
or officer-commission, board, COM
missioner, etc.
We trust that We have made this
matter SO clear that We will hear
hothlnG more of it; that this wholly
irrelevant phase of the dispute may
De abandoned and that the quarrel
may be narrowed down to the per-