Arizona republican., 1918-05-14

terms of the constitution have d vOlS | direct bearing upon the right Of courts to inquire into the method by which the law is passed so far as it appears from the journals. An examination of the various constitutions of the states will reveal that there is quite | difference in. them as to the pro- visions made fof keeping a journal and, therefore, as to the legal effect of the | journals after they are kept. Now, the constitution of Arizona is very | general, and it is very doubtful to my | mind whether the journals of this | state are public records in any par | ticular sense of the term. The ayes" and nays" are not entered in every | instance and only entered upon the | call of two members, and if the journal | fails to disclose what the vote is upon | any question, or if it does disclose il, | there is no assurance that it is ab- sOlutely accurate. No duty devolves upon the keeper of that journal to en- ter those votes unless they are called for. There is no provision for pub fishing the journal of the legislature. The constitutions of a number of the states provide for the publication of the journals; they also provide for the entry upon the journal of the ''eyes" and nays" upon every question, and go very far toward making the journals of the legislature a public record, open | to the inspection of anybody who de- sires to look through them.
 Cases Are Cited There is case cited, known as the Quail case, the case of Allen against the state, in which the supreme court has taken occasion to say that the courts will not look into the various methods by which an initiated act, be- comes a law, that is, they will not look into the procedure and processes, ac- cepting the completed act as conclusive | as to whether or not it is a law. While | that reasoning is not necessarily ap- | plicable to acts of the legislature and the value of the journals as evidence as to how the. acts were passed, yet l the same reasoning would to some ex- 1 tent apply; and I notice that the su- preme court of the state has adopted in passing on that question very near ly the same language which the su- preme court of the territory used in | determining whether or not they would look into the journals of the legis- lature of the territory to determine 1 whether or not a certain act was passed; and this attitude of the su- | preme court of the state of Arizona and the supreme court of the territory | of Arizona does have some weight in determining this case and should have, I and doubtless will have, some weight in determining the policy of the su- preme court in deciding whether or not the Journals should be received as evil dence of the passage or failure of passage of any bill which is before the legislature.
 The legislative journals of this state are not such records as may be in- spected to determine what acts the legislature has passed.
 | Right of Citizen
 There is one other question, and that IS the right of citizen to require the attorney general to bring this sort of an action. l haven't any doubt at all but what in a proper case where the unconstitutionality of an act is ap- parent, that any taxpayer can by ap, plication require the attorney general to take proceedings to set aside such an act; but having decided the other questions as I have, it is wholly inn material as to whether the attorney general could be required to act in such case as that or not.
 l am satisfied, however, MT. Nealon, that your complaint fails to state suf- ficient facts to authorize this writ,
 D~Se'hSS l1 leliiS lO SliOW llctL you nave
 brought to the attention of the attor- ney general anything excepting your verified petition. Now, in your peti- tion you have set forth not onlv the unconstitutionality of this law, but you have also set forth a great many facts
 upon which to base the invalidity of the law because of its faulty passage,
 Now the attorney general, before he caA be required to act upon a state ment of facts of that sort must have
 before him every possible information that is available or by which you think such an action by the attorney general should be taken; otherwise, you are putting the attorney general at a very great disadvantage when you ask for writ of this sort. There must be facts laid before the attorney general
 which would positively require him to
 take this action. It is not sufficient
 to say to the attorney general, Out
 there at the capitol building there are
 journals of the legislature which will
 disclose to you that this law was never
 properly passed" That is not suf- ficient. You must lay before him,