Arizona republican., 1918-06-05

 STATUS TOLD IN
 DETAIL BY J0NES

In the controversy between Lamar Cobb and Wiley E. Jones, attorney general of Arizona, the following. state ment was issued last night by the at toney generals office: S-
 The state engineer has been acting all along under the supervision and general charge of the commission of state institutions, since January 5, I 1918, the date of my letter thereon.
 No request for any further advice thereon has been asked by the state engineer, the commission or the state auditor. The law has not changed since the creation of the commission in 1917, and the state engineer of course is subject to that law: of gen eral charge" and supervision.
 The differences between the state engineer and the county authorities over highways must not bcome mud dled with any other question. No change has been made as to su- pervision or general charge of the commission of state institutions over the state engineer. or any other board or body mentioned in the act of 1917. In the control of every state highway within the state the state engineer, acts for the interests of the state, sub- ject to the late law of 1917, creating the commission of state institutions, which has general charge, as therein stated.
 Letter to State Auditor
 In further explanation of the status of the commission on state institutions the attorney general yesterday wrote as follows:
 June 4, 1918.
 MT. Jesse l.. Boyce,
 State Auditor,
 Phoenix, Arizona.
 My dear Sir;
 In responsa to your inquiry to this
 department today by phone, relative tC
 the control of state highways, upon
 which I advised the state engineer or
 the 2nd inst, I would state that that
 advice was asked by the state engineer |, for the information of his department } and the various county authoritie: I within the state as to control of state |, highways, and to effect harmony witt
 county authorities.
 In advising him as to the effect o
 Chapter ', Title 50, Laws of 1913. dealt only with tho matter of contro | of state highways created by rai' 1 chapter, and pointed out the dividin , line as to control of said state high : ways and county highways, all O l which are highways in the state, Tn | liluS SlNth lO tlIt oNeit y highway department on the 2nd inst
 was an interpretation of the law c Q 1913 upon the sole question of stat y and county control of public highway: y The state engineer is familiar with tn n law governing the supervisory power
 of general charge over the constructio y of state highways, as pointed out 1 l. my letter of January last to the com r. mission of state institutions, and ha e been acting harmoniously with th l. commission pursuant thereto. k Subject to said general charge an d supervision by the commission, he. hs ,e full authority over the control of tf 1t state highways in acting with count Ix authorities on behalf of the state. x This is to inform YOU that the lat ix law of 1917, creating the commission
 state institutions, is controlling as f. general charge exercised by that boo Te over the improyementssof grounds ar - other properties zfor which legislati' = appropriations are or shall be mad tb as set forth in my letter of January ss last.
 ao In abolishing the board of contr ae which acted with the state engineer - certain matters, and substitutiI al therefor the commission of. state inst 9s; tutions, the law Of 1917 gave to t lu commission of state institutions grea lu ly increased supervisory powers to general charge over the eXpenditu ng of legislative appropriations not ther a tofore given to the board of control lid announced in my letter of January id last, to which you are hereby referr, ITS Very respectfully. , id WILEY E. JONES ITS Attorney General