Arizona republican., 1918-05-14
DEMURRER n COBB COMPLAINT
 IS SUSTAINED BY JUDGE LYMAN

That the act creating the commission of state institutions is constitutional was the opinion handed down yesterday by Judge Lyman who sustained the general demurrer in the mandamus &C., ton brought by Lamar Cobb, former state engineer, to compel the attorney general to bring quo warranto pro- ceedings against the commission as an illegally and unconstitutionally treated body.
 The court decinred that he found no authorities to support the contention of the plaintiff relative to the uncon- stitutionality of the act growing out of a defective title.
 In handing down his decision Judge Lyman pointed out the fact that the other objection to the law-that the bill was not properly passed-was a ques- ton that had never been passed upon by the supreme court.
 Status of Journals
 The legislative journals of this state are not such journals as may be in- spected to determine what acts the legislature has passed" said Judge Lyman in ruling on this important point which had been raised in the proceedings which has been followed with interest by the entire state.
 Where the unconstitutionality of an act is apparent a citizen has the right to require the attorney general to bring an action ruled the court.
 The decision was handed down at l:30 o'clock, a number interested in the case being present when the mat ter came before the court. Thomas Nealon, representing Cobb, and the attorney generals assistants, Harben and Whitney the plaintiff, Leroy Ladd of the commission and several others were in the court room.
 Tho proceedings follow:
 Report of Proceedings
 The court: In this Cobb case there are a number of motions. The motion 10 quash will be overruled.
 Nr. Harben: May it please the court let the record show that in each of those cases where our motions are overruled, that our objections be noted in the record.
 The court: Well, it is unnecessary to take exception, l take it, to these rulings. However, they may be con- sidered excepted to if you care to do so.
 The motion to strike the amended petition will be overruled, and the mo- ton to make more definite and cer- tain will be overruled; and the plea in abatement, which is purely a legal question and not dependent upon any facts that ] can sec, the prayer that the suit may abate will be denied. ana the motion 10 make the complaint more definite and certain will also be over ruled. I am not at all sure but what hat last motion to make the complaint more definite and certain in some par ticulars should be allowed, but the view l take of the complaint and the disposition which I shall make of it makes it immaterial l think, whether tt is denied or not. l am going to sustain the general demurrer, which will make it immaterial I take it, to the defendants whether the motion to make more definite and certain is al- lowed or not. There could be nc amendment to the complaint in the particulars cited by this motion, or by these motions, to make more defin- lte and certain which would in any degreo affect this demurrer.
 This is an action which the plaintiff brings upon the ground that he is a taxpayer for the purpose of requiring the attorney general to bring pro- .cedings against the Commission of Public Institutions for the purposes of ousting them from office, upon the ground that the statute is unconstitu- tional, and that it was never passed with those formalities which the con- stitution provides shall attend the passage of every act of the legisla turc.
 Contention Unsupported
 Now. as to the unconstitutionality ol the act growing out of it's defective title, I can find no authorities which seem to me in any degree support the contention of the plaintiff. This aci is a completean and finished piece of leg islation for the purpose of providing for the government of state institu- tons. and the title is as broad as the purpose and object of the legislation is
 The other objection to the law, that t wasn't properly passed, is one oi very great importance. and so far as the particular questions raised in thi. proceeding are concerned it has never been passed upon by the supreme court of this state or territory The supreme court of the territory of Arizona diC on two or three occasions render ar opinion on questions similar to this but never any just like it. This same question has never arisen under oul present constitution. and the exac