Arizona republican., 1915-02-20
Motion to Postpone Indefi- nitely Reconsidered by Predicted Lineup Vote Not Indication of Real Sentiment
JONES SAYS CAN
 "CAN THE COMISH"
Senate Starts Consideration of Several Good Roads Bills - Many Measures Get Started Through the House Channels

The thing that The Republican pre- dicted might happen, did happen in the senate yesterday afternoon when the vote by which the Drachman pro- hibition bill had been indefinitely postponed the day before was recon sidered by a vote of 16 to 3, showing miraculous sWerving of sentiment in twentyfour hours.
 Mir. Goldwater, an enemy of the bill, had given notice that he would move for a reconsideration, the object be- Ing to cllnch the matter. But he was inclined later to let sleeping dogs lie, and refused to make the motions, in spite of the nagging of Mir. Drach- man. MT. Webb then offered the mo- tion, and it was adopted. The vote however, is not significant of real change of sentiment with respect to the bill which, it may be said, in it's present form has not as much chance of passing the senate as the Powers bill had of passing the house, and that was no chance at all. But the senate seems inclined to act upon a modified form of the bill
 Abolition of the Tax Commission
 It was day of pickering in the senate, though it was mostly good natured. Never before in one day had so many questions come up on which there were serious differences of opinion. Nearly all the time was spent in the committee of the whole The first matter brought up was Sta pley's bill, No. AS, for the abolition of the tax commission. Prefa cing its con- sideration, MT. Stapley presented the following opinion from Attorney Gen. eral Jones:
 Tn responding to your request of the 18th inst, asking my opinion upon Senate Bill No. 4s, and particularly that portion thereof relative to the abolishment of the tax commission, I have the honor to state:
 The tax commission was created by legislative act and not by the state constitution, and it has been a long established rule in America, sus- tained by a long line of decisions of state courts and of the United States courts. that an office created
 
 abolished in like manner, and the term may be shortened by general legislation in the absence of any spe cial provision of the constitution for bidding it. There Is nothing in our state constitution forbidding the pas sage of an act abolishing such ocm- mission.
 However. you ask another oues- ton which is not question of law relating to the functions of the legis- lature.' that is to your respective of fices,' as expressed in the law requir- ing my opinion. That question is in respect to the liability of the state for the salaries of the tax commits sioners if Senate Bill No. 4S becomes law and is to be directed to the courts of the state, and is a question of law relating to their respective offices. that is, the offices of the courts of the state. You can readily understand how difficult it would be for me, at this time, to precinct or anticipate officially what will be the decision of the courts of the state upon such serious question pre- scented to them. In the states of Flor ida and Colorado, and some other states, there are provisions of law, whereby such a question can be pro- pounded by the legislature direct to the supreme court of the state, be- cause the supreme court is the final arbiter that passes upon such ques- tion, but Arizona has no such provis-
 
 office such a responsibility. I will state, with all frankness. however, to your honorable body, that our of = flee has made thorough examination of the subject during the limited time you have given us. and we are pre- pared to urge to the utmost. if the question reaches this office after your adjournment. that the state is not liable for such salaries after the of- not assume responsibility for assur- ing positively what the holding would be by the supreme court of the state We cannot possibly do so out of def erence to that great department of our state government"
 Mir. Stapley then moved that the committee recommend the passage o1 the bill. MT. Coter raised an objec- tion, saying that the offices had beer created by law and the members hac run for them in good faith. The legislature would not be acting 1T good faith if it should now abolist the commission. MT. Claridge de- clared that it would be better tt abolish the corporation commission He opened the political pepper-pot b, the statement that there seemed t' be a purpose to abolish all board on which there were republicans. I was proposed to abolish the board c control with it's citizen member, an,
 (Continued on Page Seven)