Arizona republican., 1922-04-09
ARIZONA MAY PAY
MEN INJURED WHILE
IN EMPLOY OF STATE

Arizona is morally obligated to its
employees injured or killed while in
the discharge Of their official duties
and can legally extend relief to such
persons or their beneficiaftes.
That, In substance, Is the effect OF
ak opinion handed down yesterday by
the state supreme court In the case
OF Gordon b. Huntington, a former
employe OF the state highway depart
ment, versus the state. The action
reached the supreme court on appeal
by the state from q decision of the
superior court of Maricopa county,
where writ OF mandanlus issued
directing the state auditor to draw
his warrant on the state treasurer for
the amount voted Huntington by a
special act of the legislature, known
as chapter l69 OF the session laws
of 1921. In its decision, the supreme
| court upheld the constitutionality o.
the act.
The case had its inception in the
superior court of Maricopa county
when Charles w. Fairfield, state aud
itor, refused to audit claims made by
Huntington and to draw his warrant
for the amount. The refusal or the
state auditor was based on an optn-
ion by w. j. Galbraith. attorney gem
eral, who held the act unconstitu-
tional because II violated section Of
the Arizona constitution which pro-
vides that the state can not make
gifts or donations.
Huntington was one Of four state
highway employees Injured IN q ae-
| layed blast on the Tempe road more
| than two years ago. The force Of
| the explosion so injured Huntington
as to make him blind. The fifth legia-
| iature passed an act for his RELIEF,
granting him a monthly sum Tor the
remainder of his life. It was to have
| become operative June Q. last. The
| bill also provided that the Industrial
/ commission make the necessary
| claims on the auditor for the amount.
| Decision ls Far Reaching
| With the refusal OF the auditor 70
| audit and approve the claims, Hun
| tington brought suit for q writ OF
| mandamus to compel the auditor to
/ approve the claim, and after hear-
/ ing OF the case, Judge Stanford is
| sued a peremptory writ of manda-
| mus. The case was carried to the
/ supreme court on appeal by the
| auditor.
! The decision Is a far reaching one,
| declared Thomas Maddox, state en- :
| gineer, in speaking Of the case, not
only for the effect 1t will have on
| similar acts already passed but upon
any that might arise in the future.
u Among the cases mentioned by Mr.
| Maddox which will be affected by
the decision are the Laytoh relief
bill, the Murphy relief bill, and this
Devidson- Ryan measure. The 0eci-
sion also will affect the relief meas
ures passed for III. (Dockl Roseburg
victim OF the Tempe accident, and
Row Langdell, who was injured on
the Prescott Jerome highway.
"The decision gives all state en-
ployes or their families the opportu-
nifty of securing relief should they
be injured or killed while in the EN-
pioy OF the state" Mr.. Maddox said
THE state highway department can
| celed all insurance OF it's employees
nearly two years ago because the in
surance was only assurance that the
state would suffer no loss as the re-
suit of accidents. AS the state could
not be sued without It's consent. the
state could not lose and therefore
the insurance companies would not
have to pay the state for injured en-
ployes and the insurance was dis
| continued.
| "Through the discontinuance OF the
insurance. the state saved approxl-
fn4leiY EAU VUU = year Az ~ AWAAA~@%N1
The inability to collect the insurance
and the ruling of the attornye general
that all relief measures passed by the
legislature were unconstitutional LETT
the state employees without recourse
in case OF injury, or their families IN
case of death.
Relief Measures Rot Gifts
"The supreme court held that the
] relief measures were just and con-
stitutional and were not gifts or do
| nations but the moral obligation OF
the state. While the attorney gen.
eral has Is days in which TO file a
motion for a rehearing Of the case,
the decision is so plain and obviously
Just that II is believed that no fur-
ther court action will be had In the
matter.
"The main point Of the decision Il
that while the constitution prompts
gifts and donations by the state 70
| persons, corporations. and the Ike, II
| does not prohibit the state from pay
4 ing its Just moral debts The decl-
| sion makes a decided distinction be-
tween gifts and just claims, and
| points out that appropriations made
to aid state fairs and the like are
donations and therefore unconstitu :
tional. This may affect Chapter q
of the 1921 session laws which ap-
propriates $4,000 to the Northern
| Arizona fair in Prescott"
4 The decision of the supreme court.