Bisbee daily review., 1919-10-14

The following letter and explana- tory note, in which the attempt of Charles NJ. Roberts, county supervisor, to arrogate to the county supervisors power greater than those by state department is declared to be against sober common sense, is taken from the Tucson Citizen of Oct. Il:
 That the attorney-general should not call on the state engineer to look up the state law with reference to the handling of the state highway funds, but that in all his opinions, political or otherwise, he should hew to the line, letting the chips fall where they may, is the suggestion made by State Engineer Tom Maddock to Wiley E. Jones.
 This letter was mailed today. It is in answer to one from Jones, in which he suggests that he is about to issue an opinion to the county board of su- pervisors to the effect that they are masters of the situation with refer ence to the handling of any of the state 75 per cent road funds, and that the state engineer acts merely in an advisory capacity. Before taking this step, howev CT, Jones delicately sug- gested that he would like to find out what Maddock thought about it.
 It is evident rom Jones letter that he is attempting to make the path easy for Charlie Roberts in his plan for giving county supervisors more power than that exercised by state department, a scheme which Maddock does not hesitate to characterize as against common sobtr sense. Jones present attitude is made all the more ridiculous by reason of the fact that it is diametrically opposed to his views when B. M. Atwood was state engineer.
 Maddock Tackles Job
 Jones' attempt to convert the state engineer into lawyer is not exactly relished by Maddock. However, he tackles the job with thoroughness and gives a clear outline of the legal as poets of the road situation in his let ter. Here it is:
 Hon. Wiley E. Jones,
 Attorney General of Arizona, Capitol Building,
 "Phcenix, Arizona,
 Dear Sir: Your recent letter re- ceiVed by tLis office during my ab- sence.
 You deeply honor me in asking that I cite you the law. also ap- preciate your kind delay in not giving your opinion on the law until I have notified you of my acquiescence in your views. Perhaps it were better, in legal matters, to 'hew to the line; let the chips fall where they may, "a
 Your suggested opinion that the county boards of supervisors are the fiscal agents of the state of Arizona in the expenditure of federal aid funds and the state engineer is mere ly the agent of the boards of super visors is, fortunately in direct vari- ance with the legal department of the United States bureau of public roacs which has recognized the state en- gineer as the state highway depart ment, of Arizona, and refuse to trans act business with any other parties. Please read Section l, Chapter XIV, Page 24, Session Laws of 1917, where the legislature in assenting to the fed eral aid act of congress, constituted the state engineer the agent through which the state should transact busi- ness with the federal government.
 There has never been any belief in this department, that know of, that the state engineer was more than equal to the board of supervisors in the expenditure of the 75 per cent state road fund on construction not involving federal aid, unless it was oc- casioned by your letter of June 4, 1918, to the state auditor, in which, speaking of the state engineer, you stated he has full authority over the control of the state highways in act ing with county authorities on behalf of the state, or your letter of June l, 1918, to MT. B. M. Atwood, former state engineer, and member of your political party, in which find the fol- lowing paragraph:
 " It is evident from all the law