Weekly journal-miner., 1922-08-02
FUND MUST BE GUT
 UP BETWEEN "RA|LROAD" COUNTIES

preme court in subsequent litigation and the counties were obliged to rec ognize and discharge the bonds as binding obligations. Prior to state hood, the old bonds from time to time were taken up in exchange for territorial refunding bonds under which arrangement, the counties levied and collected taxes to meet the interest
 In the enabling act of June 1O, 1910, congress took cognizance of the bonds and granted in section 25, of this act, 100000 acres of land to 1 the state as trustee to be sold and the proceeds given to the counties for the redemption of the bonds and accrued interest, the remaining amount after the obligation had been paid, to be credited to the permanent school fund of the state. The state | legislature in 1915 placed a provision in the land code providing for the selection, selling, leasing, or other wise disposing Of the lands and ere ated the county bonds land fund, providing that the moneys in this fund were to be devoted first to the payment of the concurrent interest, second to the reimbursement of the counties for all interest accruing on the bonds since issued and third, for their redemption when due.
 In the opinion which was written l by Chief Justice Henry D. Ross, 1t is 1 held that the state, as trustee, thru | ,%c 1o,,I IoDorfvr1ar1f accented the | 100000 acres of land upon the terms i of the grant and has sold and leased certain sections of the same, and that the purpose of the suit was to have the money accrued from these sales and other money, that may be real ized from time to time, from the lands, applied to the liquidation Of the bonds.
 The fact that the territory of Ari- zona had taken up the original bonds and issued territorial bonds in ex- change, the opinion states, does not relieve the counties from their obli- gation nor did 1t substitute debtors. The opinion holds that the counties are still the debtors and are obligated to pay the debt.
 1.-The clear and unmistakable pur- pose of congress was to reimburse the counties for every dollar they had been, or would be out on ac- count of the bond issues," the opinion states, "and the state has no other or
 further interest in the land granted to it for the counties than faithfully to
 discharge the trust imposed upon it and accept after the payment of the iebts, anything left over for the school funds of the state.
 "The duty on the part of the audi tor and treasurer to audit and ap- prove, if found correct, the claims of
 the counties against the county bonds land fund, was a duty specially en- oined and the judgment of the court commanding them to proceed to per form this duty was correctly and propejrly entered. The duty sought to be enforced against the treasurer and auditor is one imposed by a state law Surely our courts have jurisdiction of questions concerning the duty and power of our state ot- ficers, as conferred upon them by state legislation
 In answer to the contention of the state officers that because congress in granting the lands reserved the rights to institute suits in the United States courts through the attorney general of the United States to en- force the provisions of the trust, and that no action can be maintained in the state courts to compel the states agents to perform the trust, the su- preme court states as follows:
 We should not omit to state that the attorney general of the United States is not objecting to the method provided by the legislature of Ari- zona for the administration of these railroad lands or the disposition of the funds If the donor does not ob- feet to the manner of their admin istration, it would seem that the of ficers of the state, with merely min isterial function to perform, would not hesitate to perform them, rather than impose objections in behalf of one who is not complaining but seems to be satisfied"