Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1919-11-05
EMERGENCY BILL
is LAW At ONCE
SAYS HIGH COURT.
Needs No Signature of Gov
ernor Says Most Import
ant Ruling Of Supreme
Court = All Justices In
Opinions

An emergency bill whether signed by
the governor or not, becomes a law in
Arizona, the supreme court ruled yes
terday, the opinion being far reaching
and of such Importance as to call for
an opinion from each of the three JUS
tees, Cunningham, Ross and Baker.
The opinions were rendered in the
cases of Ben r. Clark against Jesse l..
Boyce, for salary included in a bill
which the governor did not sign, and
in the case of Ed O'Brien against W,
A. Moueur seeking TO stop the leas-
ing of desert land under what was
known during the last legislature as
the "stockmen's bill" Both bills went
to the secretary of state without the
governors signature.
In the Cunningham opinion he
states: THE clear duty of the gov
ernor in such cases is the approval or
disapproval of every bill presented to
him by the legislative assembly. He
can take no middle course. This court
must presume that every sworn Off
Ger has done his duty until the con-
trary appears, and this presumption
applies to the governor"
/ The case seeking to withhold the
| leasing of land brought by O'Brien, by
the decision of the supreme court is
dismissed, the judgment of the lower
court, rendered by Judge Samuel Pat
tee in the Maricopa superior, is re-
versed. In the salary case the judg-
ment is reversed.
Following are excerpts from the
opinions, Justice Baker in his opinion
stating expression of individual judi
clal views on a grave constitutional
question is always permissible:
From Ross Opinion
An ordinary bill or one subject to
the referendum may be passed by
majority vote of both houses and over
the governors veto by two-thirds
vote
! Reduced to simple statement. il
means that the rule of a majority to
pass a law as herein stated, should bo
modified as requiring a two-third
measures as requiring a two third
vote, or when vetoed by the governor
threefourths vote. Otherwise the
provisions of Section ., Article 6, arr
to apply to emergency measures. This
section Z then, if not in direct Ian
guage, has, by every intendment, pro-
vided that an emergency measure be-
comes law in the same manner as
any ordinary BILL
from Baker OpinIon
Il have serious doubt if we have any
right to import into the expression
| also approved by the governor, any
word or words that such approval must
be in writing. We must construe it
as we find it and take it as it is. The
1 trainers of the constitution omitted
any such word or words and it is 70
( be presumed that such omission was
] NJ he
Intentional the conclusion seems ire
sistible that it was suffered to exist
for the purpose of avoiding any con-
fliet with the provisions of Section 7
relative to the tacit or implied ap-
proval of bill, leaving that provisiol
to operate on an emergency bill
From Cunningham Opinion
ut bears on its face the certificate
of the secretary of state to
the effect that the enrolled bill was
held by the governor for ten days, af-
ter the legislature closed the session
at which it was passed and filed the
same in the secretary's office as law
on the 26th day of March, 1919 We
take notice that the legislature finally
adjourned on the 18th day of March.
1919. The bill was neither vetoed OF
disapproved with the stated objections.
1T is clearly a valid existing law
and as such became operative on the
26th day of March, 1919. the time it
was filed by the governor without OBJ
lection. We are compelled to the con
clusion that when the governor has
filed the bill in the proper office at the
expiration of his time for consideration
that he filed it with his entire appro-
val, unless the contrary appears. The
contrary does not appear on the face
Of the record of the law"