Arizona republican., 1921-12-20

to any appointment to any second highway commission or to any ap- pointment as of date of Aug. 23, 1920, but are conditioned in similar lan- guage to that of yourself which reads as follows:
 "The condition of the above obliga- ton is such that, whereas, the above bounden principal, A. F. Jones was duly appointed to the office of high way commissioner for Maricopa county, state of Arizona, on the 31st day of March, 1919, for a term of two years from and after said date; and gave corporate bond of the above named surety in the amount of One Thousand ($1.0OO) Dollars, condi- toned upon the faithful performance of his duties as said highway com missioner and; whereas. additional bond is required by the state of Ari- zona from this date in the amount of One Thousand (s1 1,000) dollars, conditioned upon the faithful per formance of his duties as highway commissioner, ect." Dated Aug 20, 1920.
 Therefore, it clearly appears both from the resolution of the board of supervisors above quoted. from the absence of any official oath as mem- Der of the second highway commis-
 
 additional bond filed reciting an ap- pointment not on Aug. 2S. 1920. but an appointment as of date March 31, 1919, the date when the first high way commission of Maricopa county was appointed, that neither the board of supervisors nor the highway commissioners ever considered that the effect of the resolution of the board of supervisors of date Aug. 23, l. Asert. way commission or to appoint any members thereof, but if such had been the effect there of then the said | appointees never qualified as such members either by filing an oath of office as members of a second high way commission or by giving any | bond as members of a second high | way commission.
 Therefore, in view of the forego- l ing there can be no doubt that there has been and now but one county highway commission for Maricopa | county.
 As to second question discussed at said conference between yourself and the board of supervisors few days since, namely; whether if there is and has been but one highway com mission for Maricopa county the said | highway commission have any juris- diction over the expenditures of the proceeds of the second or s4.500,00O | bond issue, I would say:
 The provisions of the acts of 1917 and 1919 first above quoted clearly | indicate to my mind that county l highway commission can only expend | the proceeds of the bond issue to take | charge of which they were first ap- l pointed The Maricopa county high way commission were first appointed | March 31, 1919 to take charge of a | proposed $4.00o,000 bond issue. The | term of office of the members there | of expired on the 31st day of March, | 1921, whereupon the board of super visors of Maricopa county by resolu- | ton. the preamble of which recites ! the first s4 ,000, 900 bond election and bond issue, reappointed all the mem- | bers thereof except MT. Hackett and | in his stead appointed Clarence Bald ! win.
 | It is quite clear to my mind that | the commission so reappointed were only appointed to fill the vacancies in the office of highway commissioner caused by the expiration of such term | of two years and that they. both un- | der the law and under the terms ol the resolution appointing them. were limited in their jurisdiction to tho completion of the proposed program under the first $4 900, 900 bond issu, and that their term of office as sucf highway commissioners will auto matically expire when the proceeds ! of said s4.00O. 900 bond issue have been expended
 If the resolution of the board O supervisors of Maricopa county O | August 23, 1920, be construed as al attempt upon the part of the super visors of Marieopa county to exten' and enlarge the Jurisdiction of tn then existing highway commission so as to include the expenditure O the proceeds of the proposed secon' bond issue, then I find no provision of law warranting such action of tn board of supervisors, and being board of limited jurisdiction. havini only such powers as are expressl. delegated to 1t by law, their actioi in that regard was of no force or ef feet. neither had they in my opiniol at the time they called the electiol upon the second bond issue any au thority so to do. However, in 1s2 the legislature Csee Chapter s6, Ses sion Laws 192D validated the sai' election and validated the bond thereat voted. l find in the constitu tion of the state of Arizona no re striction upon the power of the leg islature so to do and in the absenc of such constitutional inhibition tn legislature has the right tos validat any action taken without authorit of law which it could have author ized in the first instance. The lesis
 lature clearly could have authorizes a bond election without any previou appointment of a highway comn1is
 sion therefor. and therefore. as befor stated, could validate such an election even though held without authorit,
 of law and by the provisions of sail
 Chapter SC. Session Laws of AriZon 1921, has so done, but nowhere In sai' act is there any provision validating
 confirming or approving the appoint
 ment of a second highway commis
 sion for Maricopa county to exercis
 Jurisdiction over the expenditure O the proceeds of the second bond issue All the Acts purports to validate wa
 the election itself and the bonds au thorized to be issued at such election
 Therefore, for the reasons befor
 given. I am of the opinion: