Arizona republican., 1918-02-03

of the house of Representatives of the state of Arizona the enacting clause thereof was, by order of the house of representatives, stricken from said bill and was never restored as is affirm atively shown by the journal of said house of representatives.
 b-That said pretended act is uncon- stitutional and void for the further reason that an attempt was made to create an office to be known as the commission of state institutions by said Chapter 89 of the session laws of the state of Arizona 1917, which said act was and is void and unconstitu- tional for the reason that same is in contravention of. and in conflict with article 1, subdivision :, section 13 of the constitution of the state of Arizona, Tn that no such purpose was expressed in the title of said alleged act l. c-That the office of the state en- gineer of the state of Arizona and the roads and highways of the state of Ari- zona are not state institutions within the purvieW of said void and uncon- stitutional pretended act or subject to the control of these defendants.
 Say it Does not Comply
 d-That the said purported act is void and unconstitutional for the fur eANA lCd-oO1 NtI1t LhO ooio iOucC Ol ICp- resentatives of the state of Arizona did not comply with the requirements of section 12, subdivision of Article of the constitution for the state of Ari- zona in that said pretended act was not read three times as required by section 12, nor did two-thirds of the house dispense with the reading there of as affirmatively appears by the journal of the said house of represent atives.
 e-That said pretended act, insofar as it attempted to abolish the board of control, is void and unconstitutional for the same reason that same is in conflict with section 14, subdivision ?, article of the constitution of the state of Arizona in that it is an attempt to revise, alter and repeal an act creating said board of control without setting the same forth and publishing it at full length.
 That said pretended act is un- constitutional and void insofar. as it attempts to revise, amend, alter or re- peal acts or sections thereof prescrib- ing the duties of the board of control for the reason that same is contrary to section IA, subdivision 2, article 4 of the constitution of the state of Ari- zona in that such acts or sections as amemnded have not been set forth and published at length and for the further reason that same is in contravention of and in conflict with section IS, subdi- vision 2, article of the constitution in that said purpose is not embraced in the title of said pretended act
 MT. Cobb claims that the commits sion is demanding that the state en- gineer submit to the commission for approval all bills and claims for labor performed and materials furnished for the state under the supervision and di- rection of the engineer and that he shall not make any contracts for work or repairs of public roads or highways without the consent of the commission
 Another demand of the commission alleges Cobb, is that he shall not pur- chase any material or supplies for use of his office or for the purpose of con- structing or repairing roads or high ways without the commission assent ing.
 Have Notified Boards He further charges that the commits sion has notified the various boards O supervisors of the state that expendi ture of state funds heretofore author. ! ized to be made upon the authority anC direction of the county boards or su pervisors and the state engineer "a provided by law" must now be mad upon the authority and direction of tn county boards of supervisors and tn commission.
 The commission is alleged to hay interferred by usurping the powers an, duties of the board of control in tn disbursement of state funds 'require' by law to be disbursed under the join supervision of the board of control an
 the state engineer"
 In instructing the state auditor no
 to audit bills for the expenditure o
 moneys on the highways and for mate
 rial furnished under the authority c
 the supervisors and engineer, the com
 mission is said to have interferred wit
 the state engineer.
 The state engineer charges that tn defendants have attempted to interfer with the discretion placed by law i the state engineer and the boards ( supervisors in the matter of abrogatio of contracts and with the direction an control of convicts in their employmer upon public highways.
 The complaint and petition was file !