Arizona republican., 1917-04-05
BILLS
NOT ENTIRELY
SETTLED|SSUE

The status of Senate Bill, No 80,
occupied practically the entire time of
the city commission at its regular meet
ing yesterday morning. and though
City Attorney Richard F. Sloan ex-
planned at length the result of his re-
search, the situation was not entirely
cleared, another week being granted
for further research.
A resolution offered, ordering the
paving of certain portions of Portland
place, held over previously, was again
presented for reading whereupOn City
Attorney Sloan was asked for a re-
port of his Investigations.
Attorney Sloan stated that he and
Assistant City Attorney ]. Z. Nelson
had given the matter d great deal of
attention and examined a great many
authorities and they had come to the
conclusion that there is not sufficient
grounds of objection in either of the
points considered first, that the bill
uoes not properly express the subject,
and second, that it was not passed in
the manner and mode provided by the
constitution, in that it was not read
section by section upon its final pass
age; that upon neither of these grounds
can the act be successfully attacked,
though there is no doubt but that the
title of the bill is misleading, and that
may have been Intentionally so or not.
He said that the constitutional provi-
sion is broad one, and no authority
is found to sustain the proposition that
The mere misleading character of the
title is in itself sufficient to render the
act invalid, if it does express the sub
iect, and that the title is expressed in
the general subject, in that it definitely
refers to the sections of the act which
ere amended. Upon the objection that
it was not read section by section upon
its final passage he stated that the su-
preme court has held that the journals
ere not evidence to determine a ques-
ton of that kind. The constitution does
not require that the journals state al
firmatively whether the bill was read
upon its final passage, but does re-
quire that the ayes and nays be re-
corded.
Assuming that the act is a valid
one" he said, the question is whether
there has been any essential change in
The matter of the provision relating to
the alternate plans and specified tons.
There has been some change in that
the provisions in Section 1857 and 1870,
added thereto by the Amendment of
1915, have been omitted from Act so.
These provisions relate 20 the matter
Of advertising for bids and the letting
plans and specifications, and kinds and
classes of construction. But Section
1855 remains as it was amended in 1915,
and contains provision that the legis-
lative body of the municipality may, in
its discretion, provide in the resolution
of intention for several alternate plans
and specifications and call for. several
alternate bids, to be thereafter deter
mined by the said legislative body, and
therefore that it is permissible, in the
resolution of intention, to provide ten
tatively for alternate plans and speci-
fieations, though it is not required that
this shall be done, but it is permissible
IN the discretion of the commission
The question is where and when and
IN what manner the commission is to
exercise the discretion and determine
which plans and specifications shall
be adopted, there being no provision
with reference to the time when plans
or specification shall be determined by
the commission. He stated that, in his
Judgment. it would be entirely safe fol
the commission to provide, by resolu-
ton or otherwise which of the plan:
and specifications, mentioned in any
resolution of intention, snail be adopted
in advance of the advertising for bids
This woalld be in strict compliance
with the law as it now stands Tit
question, therefore, comes down t.
whether the commission shall adopt tn,
safe plan. or whether it is willing t.
take some chances and proceed unde
the old plan. If they determined tn,
type of paving in advance of the call
ing for bids. and restricted the calm.
for bids to that type, they are within
the law.
Mr.. MacBean asked what he woult
advise as to the proceedings on Fourtl