Arizona republican., 1919-03-07

So in case, in George Y. CcrliGs, II Rhode Island 63S, it was held that the offices of commissioner of the United States Centennial Commission (serving without salary or conlpensa- tion) was an office Of trust and dis qualified the holder from being pres idCntial elector.
 A similar provision was passed upon in Minnesota, and tiicrs held that q legislator who was appointed boiler inspector and performed the duties after an adjournment Of the legisia ture was ineligible.
 The court says:
 That time for whichihe was elected was the entire constitutional term cf two years and whetner he resigned or not was not permitted 10 hold any other office, under the authority of the state, during such entire term. Hence whether a member holds an office either by trafficking for it, or by appointment conferrcd upon him, without solicitation ana without bar gaining for it, he still comes within the constitutional prohibition. It is not merely question oi whether he obtained the office in I3 honorable manner, but the proh.rtt:on is so far reaching as to prohiDi- its hcainS he'd, no matter what the conditions are upon which it was 0Dtained
 State V Sutton G \. W Reporter, 262.
 Whatever doubt there might be as to the power of ;h2 legislature to create q separate Apartment of state to become the executive department for state roads" due to Article III, disappears in the present case. Under the special provisions as to members of the legislature not being qualified 10 hold office, such a department can
 not be in any sense a legislative de- partment, for the simple reason that the legislature cannot inject any of its members into a commission created or sought to be so created-by Sen ate Bill r. The commission must
 fail for reason of the fact that it can-
 not be organized in the manner pre-
 scribed. It can never have five mem bers, two of whom are members of the legislature.
 Senate Bill r infringes upon the constitutional powers and duties of the governor in that it provides a com mission not even under control of the ! governor, which commission is: "(g) To make agreements on behalf
 of the state of Arizona with the United
 States government or any department ] thereof, in any manner affecting the
 public highways of the state 1 Section 1; Art V. Of the constitution ] says:
 "The governor shall transact all
 executive business with officers of the ] government civil and military 1 This power cannot be. taken away | from the executive by the legislature | If any act of the legislature is neces- ! sary to make the above provision ' eXecutory, if standing alone it is not I self-executing. These laws which may : he enacted by the legislature must
 certainly be confined to legislation di-
 recting how the governor may trans . act business with the United States and not taking from him the power tc act in any manner in transacting sucf { business. (See State V. Osborn l.
 Arizona at page 194)
 In the case cited a canvassing boar,
 created by the legislature was heiC
 beyond the powers of legislation, fo, reason of a provision that the secre- tary of state should canvass, etc. YoI
 are probably quite familiar with tha case, and the comments upon it il the mandamus suit-Campbell Y. Hunt
 l only mention it to bring to youl mind the similarity between the con
 stitutional provision therein discussg,
 and Section 1, Article V, as to the chic eXcutive's powers in transacting busi ness with the government
 Under the specific powers os tn
 proposed site highway engineer. (Sec 14, Sub. (rn) the latter is to enter inu
 agreements with the federal govern
 ment or any department thereof, Whol agreements are properly approved b
 the commission
 The whole act eliminates the gover nor from transaction of all or any busi , ness with the federal government be
 yond any question.
 . I do not believe there can be an, doubt about the proposition that . this bill stands. it would entirely des troy the constitutional power of tn
 governor to transact the executiv,
 business of the state with the Unite, States. To that extent it is uncon } stitutional
 , The violation of the constitution an;
 the consequent deprivation of powe : in the governor in this respect, woul' also probably result in the loss O 5 federal aid for roads in this state , which under present congressiona 5 legislation will amount to nearly fou million (s,4,000,0 ,000) dollars in the mex three years.
 The business to be transacted D, 5 the state commission of highways an by the state highway engineer. wit : the departments of the United States cannot be classed as ministerial Tn ? language of the act itself preclude f any such claim. It says: 9 "G) To act upon proposed agree ] ments on behalf of the state of Ari . zona with the United States govern . ment or any department of the sam, f in any manner affecting tho publi , highways of the state"
 r Respecting the engineer fl says: l '(m) Enter into agreements prop T erly approved by the commission I r behalf of the state of Arizona with tn y federal government or any .departmen ' thereof, in any manner affecting tn
 highways of the state.n
 The state highway engineer is mad q the chief executive officer of tn l state highway department (See Se' If of Act) The governor is not ,, member of "the commission Tha y commission is clothed with power = and duties:
 . That relate to determining an . carrying out the general policy of tn e state highway department and con e trolling it's financial affairs" = If any power remains undisposed ( C by express delegation in Section Il ( a the Act, I am unable to discern wha
 power is not therein vested in tn s commission. Its powers are expresse