Arizona republican., 1922-02-08


as follows: TO the foregoing end, the
board Of supervisors of said Maricopa
county does hereby appoint each and
all of the members of the highway
commission for Maricopa county as
the same is now constituted Well,
il the board had left out all that ref
erence to the present board of COM
missioners, as IL is now constituted,
it would have saved a lot of confusion
like enough: but the gist of it is, to-
wit, We do hereby appoint u. r.
Hackett, A. r. Jones, r. T. Hurley, j.
G. Peterson and A. A. Carrick as
members of the highway commission
for Maricopa county'-For WHAT
to have jurisdiction relative to the
proposed additional bond issue.
Says Wording 10 Complete
Now. that appears to me to say all
that the statute contemplates could be
said. They said, We have notion
there should be some more bonds is
sued We appoint these five men
who shall have jurisdiction relative
to this bond issue Now. that is all
there is Of IT, Then after the report
comes in they pass some more reso-
lutions which is in the nature Of a call
for bond election. Now. this is what
they say in regard to that. ! think II
has been intimated here that the time
Of the appointment OF the commission
and calling of the election should be
coincident. / am not quite sure
whether this is so or not. In any
event, the board of supervisors took
two resolutions instead Of one. In the
second resolution, however. they do
refer to what they have done prev
iously in this language, Whereas.
heretofore and on the 10th day Of
August, 1920. that was the date OF
the resolution I just read in part
the board of supervisors did duly and
regularly appoint. as provided by law,
each and all OF the members of the
then existing highway commission,
they identify them as the men who
were already on the first highway
commission, but there is no uncer-
tainty about who they meant-'each
and all OF the members of the then
existing highway commission for
Maricopa county as members of the
highway commission for Maricopa
county TO have jurisdiction relative to
the proposed bond issue hereinafter
mentioned II this was a murder case
there wouldn't have been any doubt
as to the men; they would certainly
have been identified as the men the
board had reference to. to have juris-
diction OF the second bond issue.
Now, that is all that they need to say
about that. That is all they do say
directly upon that question. And
then they go ahead by the same set
OF resolutions and direct an election
to determine whether there should be
an issue of four and a half million of
bonds, and to be spent, of course. by
these men whom they have hereto
fore appointed,
Bond Is Staggering
"Now, is 1t possible that after the
board of supervisors have so unmis-
takably, equivocally and by a double
shot indicated five men who shall. hold
that office, Is 1t possible that the
court should say. Well, those men
have not been appointed Well, 1t
would be possible If they had not
qualified, and this Is open to some
question. This bond is rather stag
gering in Its terms, but l take It that
elected to public office and he pre-
spnts to the person who is vested with
the duty OF accepting a bond, he pre-
sents to that functionary q bond
which he has in good faith bought,
paid for, and which to the layman's
mind might seem to qualify him. he
presents a bond OF that sort, and that
says, All right, Mr.. Jones.
your bond is all right. We will just
take that bond And he takes 1t and
endorses it with his approval the law
officer OF the county endorses 1t with
his approval and 1t Is passed into the
records of the county. and the man
goes in blitheiy about his duties
- 4 Z. Vs-.a--a q. nGs
the bond / think must be very radi-
cally defective--I think it must be no
bond even in form that would warrant
a court in saying that that officer had
not qualified. The officer does all
that, in form at least. the law re-
quires him to do. There is no ques-