Weekly journal-miner., 1915-01-13

on which I could grant the applica- ton at this time," declared the judge, and 1t would take a great deal more argument than has been adduced here to convince me that the act is un- constitutional or that it amounts to the confiscation of county property
 Further explaining his position, Judge Smith said that there was not one thing in the new law which would indicate that the board of control would not eXpend the money taken by the sale of the poor farm property in the care of the poor and indigent people of Yavapai county alone and that there was not even suggestion in the law which would prevent the board from doing just such thing. He also stated it to be his opinion that the words 'alms houses" in the new law include county hospitals.
 It was plain that unless the at torncys for the Chamber of Commerce can, when the matter comes up again bring forth a great many more points to sustain their position the judge will sustain the demurrer of the county attorney Judge Smith ob jectcd to the complaint in that 1t as sumed the board of supervisors was going to do something which 1t had not already done, and said that he doubted if the form of action pre- scented to him was the proper one i'll which the case should be presented.
 The Contentious.
 This paper has already printed a resume of the contentious of the at torneys for the plaintiff, and these are that the law Is unconstitutional; that it diverts property from the county to the state in an unconstitu- tional manner, and that the title of the act is incomplete to the extent of nullifying the same. These are the main contentious.
 Mir. Morgan met these contentious with the proposition that the title of an initiated act could not affect the act itself. the constitutional provis- ion on this score referring only to laws passed by the legislature. He contcnded that the people have a perfect right to pass such a law and to regulate the aims houses of the state as they see fit; that the state has absolute control of all public buildings in every county and that it follows they have the right to cause the sale of county property in the manner provided by the new law in other words. that the state is the director of each and every county in such matters, the county being but an agent of the state. He cited a de- cision of the supreme court of Colo rado sustaining the city of Denver in charging its incorporation and taking in property belonging to the county and diverting it to the uses of the city, and some other authorities to the same general effect. He contend 1 ed that q county hospital is an aims house He also argued that the su- perior court had no power to act in such case; that the only remedy | IS a repeal or modification of the law | by the legislature or a referendum | vote of the people. In answer to the that another initiated law | prevented the legislature from re- oealing initiated laws, he said that the mothers pension law was not passed by majority of the qualified | electors of the state voting at the last general election, but was merely 1 passed by a majority of the people voting on that particular proposition and that the initiated law taking the power of repeal away from the lcgis 1 laturc referred only to measures which had been passed by majority of all the qualified electors of the state who voted at the general cleo tion On this ground he contends that the legislature has the absolute power to repeal this specific law, and some of the opposing attorneys CO., ncided with this view
 Taken as a whole, there seems to be little prospect of relief from the niquitous mothers pension law by the action instituted in this county.