Arizona republican., 1917-06-29
OSBORN REPORT
 II JONES N0TE
 |S BIT POINTED

Insisting that the cOnstitutiOnality of the minimum wage statute IS not attacked by the proceedings in supe- rjOr court to prevent him declaring q referendum on that bill. and that the only question is one of sufficiency of the petitions, Secretary of State Sidney P. Osborn replied yesterday to Attorney General Wiley E. Jones in a letter to that official.
 Mir. Osborn trusts that when he hands MT. Jones a voucher for the torney in the case MT. Jones will approve of the same. The letter is as follows:
 June 2S. 1917 Hon. Wiley F. Jones, Attorney Gen
 eral Phoenix, Ariz.
 My Dear Sir: With reference to vour letter of June 25, in reply to my request that you represent the office of the secretary of state in the pro- ceedings brought in the superior court of Maricopa county to restrain that office from declaring a referen dunn on the statute passed by the present legislature, entitled the Min imum Wage Law for Women" would say that I regret that you have adopted the attitude you seem to have taken It does not appear that the constitutionality or legality of the minimum wage statute is in any manner attacked by this proceeding tC restrain my office from declaring referendum upon the statute In fact. the only question involved in this proceeding would seem to be the legal sufficiency of the petitions op file in my office to secure the piac- ing of the measure upon the ballot. at the next general state election. Nc other question has been raised.
 I am well aware of the fact that much interest has been manifested in the matter of the referendum of this measure, as you state in your letter and am also cognizant of the fact that accusations have been made against the circulators of the pefl- tions. But as that is entEely a mat tr for jury to decide if the dues- tion should ever be presented in court, and as the presumption of in nocence must prevail in the absence of a determination of such a ques tion by a jury, I fail to see whv t should be necessary for your office to put the state to the expense of employing outside legal assistance ir an ordinary injunction proceeding which merely involves the perform ance of a ministerial duty of the sec retarv of state under the referendum provisions of our code. In this con- nection. I would call your attention to the fact that no appropriation has been made for the secretary of state to employ such a legal assistant. and from this it is very evident to me that the legislature had in mind that the attorney general. as the attorney +1,, rty represent the office of the secretary of state, just as it is provided for the attorney general to represent the other offices of the state in cOntro- verted legal matters. However, yoV have declined to perform this duty and have advised me to secure an at tOrney elsewhere to represent my of- flee in this proceeding. l have ac cordingly selected MT. ". l.. Bar mum for this service, and in due time will present to you the voucher claim of MT. Barnum. which 1 trust you will approve, so that payment may be made promptly out of the fund provided your office for such extra legal assistance as you require. This is my understanding of your advice, and it has controlled the ac- tion I have taken.
 
 of the legal representatives of the friends of the referendum of this measure" as you suggest. would be impossible. I am not interested either officially or personally, in any action they may see fit to take The laws of the state impose upon me. as secretary of state, the ministerial duty of checking the names upon a referendum petition and should they be found sufficient in number, the law compels me to declare the stat ute in question referred and to cause it to be placed upon the ballot at the next general state election. No dis cretion is allowed the secretary of state in this matter, and l have obeyed the express command of the statute in question. Even if l per sonally knew of fraud and other un- lawful acts in connection with the referendum petitions, the law allows me no discretion, but cOmpels the declaration of the referendum should the petitions on file in my office be in form substantially in compliance with the provisions of the code. The suggestion that you make as to these friends of the referendum inter- vening, might be made by you with better grace to those friends as with their intervention or other ac tions I. as secretary of state, have no concern. As secretary of state the custodian of the referendum peti- tions, I, as secretary of state, have pear in the superior court in order that that tribunal may determine by inquiry as to whether or not the peti- tions for the referendum are legally sufficient to justify the law being placed upon the ballot, and aside from this I am in no way concerned in the question.
 Since you have. as attorney gen eral, refused to appear in court as the legal representative of the state o1 Arizona, I have secured the services of another attorney in accordance with your instructions Should yot fail to see your way clear to remun- crate MT. Barnum for his services which are being given solely at youl request the matter will. of course have to be presented to the next ses. sion of the legislature in order tC secure the proper appropriation tt cover this extra expense which does not seem to have been anticipated il view of the general provision that the attorney general should repre- sent the state officers in affairs O this kind.
 Trusting my interpretation of you instructions is correct, I am, witt best wishes,
 Sincerely yours,
 SIDNEY p OGP0RN