Arizona republican., 1921-12-20
High.Uay Board Can't Continue Under The Second Bond Issue
(Continued from Page D

function at the same time in the same county, yet, in my opinion, no second Highway Commission was ever created by the Board of Super visors of this county.
 If any such second Highway Com mission was attempted to be created it must be under the provisions of that certain resolution of the Board of Supervisors ot Maricopa County passed on the 23rd day. of August, 1920. which. after reciting the is- suance of the -s4.000.O00 bond issue and the inadeqtsicy of the proceeds ofesuch bond issue to complete the program proposed, reciting that cer- tain other important highways in the county shall also be improved, and proposing to all an additional bond election upon the volition of the Supervisors, reads as follows:
 ITO the foregoing end of the board of supervisors of said Maricopa coun- ty does hereby appoint each and all or the members of the highway com mission for Maricopa county as the same is now constituted, to-wit E. F. Racket, A. F. Jones, P. T. Hurley, J c. Peterson, and A. A Carrick, as members of the highway commission for Maricopa county, to have juris- diction relative to the proposed addi- tional bond issue hereinabove re- ferred to. in addition to the powers already possessed by said highway commission: and said board of su- pervisors does hereby direct said highway commission to investigate the public highways of Maricopa county with respect to said proposed additional bond issue, to make their report and recommendation tc this board, and to do all other acts and things in the premises, as prescribed by law.
 And the said board of supervisors does hereby order and direct that each member of the highway com mission for Maricopa county give bond in the increased amount of One Thousand Dollars $1,0O000) over and above that already give. so that each member of said highway Commission shall have given bond in the sum oi Two Thousand Dollars (S2000.00) the board hereby reserving the right to increase the amounts of said bonds from time to time hereafter as the board may deem proper
 It would seem from the reading oi this resolution that the board of su- pervisors never contemplated the ap- pointment of a second highway com mission but only the extension of the powers and jurisdiction of a highway commission already appointed ant 1unetioning, as a second highway commission would have no power. except in relation to the proposed ad. ditional bond issue. and the word.
 in addition to the powers already possessed by said highway commis- slon can only refer to the highwa, al functioning. Likewise, the .provi. sions that leach member of the high. way commission for Maricopa county give bond in the increased amount o Sl,O00 over and above that alreadl gwen so that each member of sait highway commission shall have giver bond in the sum of g, 900" could ap l ply to highway commission aIread, existing and functioning and not to ; l second highway commission then be ing appointed and the members O | which had heretofore given no bond so that 1t seems quite clear that Il, second highway commission. even i | the board of supervisors had powe | to create the same, was ever actual, | created.
 l 3. Even if the law authorized tn appointment of two highway com missions to function at the sam
 tune. and even if the board of su
 pervisors had created a second high
 way commission and appointed tn
 members thereof. still no secon | highway commission ever actuall existed for the reason that none O the members of the commission S appointed ever qualified as such com
 missioners.
 It cannot be doubted that a count, l highway commissioner is publi officer as contemplated by law. Tn
 Statutes of Arizona, paragraphs r l and l79 Revised Statutes of Arizon
 1913, requiring that before any off l Ger enters upon the duties of his of
 flee he shall take and subscribe a
 oath in the form therein fixed an
 that such oath must be taken. sub | scribed and filed within 10 days afte
 his appointment if appointed or 1 elected at least one day before com 1 mencement of the term of his offic,
 An examination of the record dis l closes that no oath of office IS mem
 Der of a second highway commissio l of Maricopa county was ever takeI
 subscribed or filed by any of tn persons claimed to be appointed {
 such office. The bonds filed by tn
 said various persons under the orde
 of the board of supervisors (of dat August 23. 1g20) requiring each mem
 Der of the highway commission fo
 Maricopa county to give bond in tn increased amount of sI.0O0 over an a nfrA I1r rrg. yN-