Year: 1868

sponsble frame work of the government changed Hut it cannot be thus done. Such course s upon every principle of sound law forbidden. not Ony against a firmly established legal maxim that dsiegG.

 Go DrotcsfanOn proest dsieoare but also the positive requirements of the Organic law. These principles illustrated and enforced by the following cases from among many others BartOw Vs. Himrod et a Selden Rep. ls3. Thorn vs Cramer IS Barber Rep ll2. Beardsly vs Baxter, l5 Barber, 22. Car. ming vs Green p Barber g G 30 Col Rep ll3 In the Of Barrow Himrod just referred to the Court Of Appeals in New York held the act estab- fishing free schools throughou, the State anconst

 tutional and void for the that the fact Of its becoming law was made to depend on the result of popular vote. The Court in t, opinion in that case, say Laws must be enacted hy The legislative body Co which the legislative power is committed by the constitution They cannot diyest themselves of the responsibility oi their enactments by reference oi the question o-thef passage to their constituents

 the people. The objections say the Court to this mode of legislation is that the legislative discretion is power which they are bound to exercise them. selves and which they cannot delegate or communi- cate to any other man or men to exercise they have no more authority 0 refer such question to the whole people than to an individual The people sovereign but tqeir sovereignty mnst be exercised m the mode which they have pointed out in their constitution A fOrtiori in the the under con sderaton the legislative authority of Arizona cannot delegate it's power of making and prescribing the apportonment to tbe Executive. when that duty by the Organic act is expressly required to be done by the law making power and which can only aot m the sorm of 70 law The case in the Gal Rep above referred t0 arose under the 3d of the con

 stitution of that State. which provides that jury

 trial may be waved by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. In tbe code

 of that State purporng to give effect to this clause

 of the Const tution concerning civil eases Is pre-.

 scribed that the courts may prescribe by rule what

 shall be deemed waiver of the tfia by jnry On The

 question to the consttntonaty of the staiute the

 Supreme Court of that State says The constitution | has imposed the power as well as the dnty upon the

 legislature to determine in what eases trial by jury

 may be waived which cannot be transferred or dele | gated Co any other department Of government The

 words prescrbed by law" look to actnsl legislation

 upon the subject and in just can be extended

 to permission for the exercise of their power 10

 another. Besides the power to prescribe by law Is

 legislative and cannot be confered judicial oih

 CT officers, has already been before decided by us

 This reasoning with all its force applies to the legs

 lative power under the Organic act and the leglsa-

 tive power therein granted only De exercised In

 the pointed out in that act which act is Co

 the Territory in fact it's law and constitution. The

 Organic act creates and imposes the law making

 power of the Territory the duty of apporionmen,

 by the same terms and n the same language as it

 does the duty Of fixing the time. place and manner

 Of conducting the general election and all In ian

 guage too obviously plain and unambguons 10 admit

 Of any doubt as to its force and effect With equal

 propriety might the Legislature have attempted Co

 delegate to the Executive the power Of fixing the

 time. place and of holding and conducting elections and indeed the whole legislative power of the Territory that of making prescribing the

 apport onment~of members of the legislature. Thi'

 view of She need but he stated to show the pal :, pabe absurdity of such practice, nor can the re qgiremenis of the Organic act be compiled with by

 anything short of law itself making the apportlOu

 ment required both by the letter and manifest in tent of the Organic act But again this is mAnife- attempt ,vhetnur intentional nOtj the part o the legislative power and against clear prohibition to authorize the Executive Department ui the ssm' government to do legislative act which the Organic law armaiiyey requires should be done by the leg islstye power In whatever light this ae, os th'

 Territorial Legislature is looked a t is in m4niies cobnct with the Organic law snd therefore void iu when legislative act Of tbe Territory is n conhlG

 with it's Organic law h is to be measured and tesie' l. by tbe rule that controls State legislation whel l. found in conflict wItb the constitution of the State

 for ;hs Organic law to Territory it's constitution P and all legislation in conflict with it is void. Tn l. act of ihe first Legislature Of the 10th Of November d 1884 puIpottng to authorize the Governor tO appor ? tian the members Of the legislature being thus |

 manifest conflict with the Organic law Is noperatiy e and void and gave such authority. From the fu

 view of the whole of ths part 1f the case the Cour

 Is compelled 10 ibe inevitable conclusion that the d portoniDg of the third legislative council by th Is Governor was not a compliance with the Organi !, act or competent valid act under ts provisions bu

 on the contrary was n manifest conflict with it un . warranted by law and void Asa necessary eonse ' quence The legislative assembly apportioned va Y unauthorized by law and destitute ot any lsgsAty

 authority to legisate for the Territory Of Arizona s 2d, Was the act of the legislative coano of ih V year 1866 purportiDg to change the time of holdin h the general election from the first "Wednesday u September to the first Wednesday Of June, val 'r legislative scr in fine had it the force of law

 g The view already taken Of the previous questo makes t unnecessary to pursue this into any deta The third legislative assembly being destitute of es ,e isatye pOwerthat having lspsed for want of con ic pliance with the requirements Of the Organic law C. it's composition by the Governor, the act purporin 'd to change the time of holding the general eleeuo ul from the first Wednesday of September io the hr nt Wednesday of June a necessity was and is vol r. and imperative as law. the Organic law requriu Id that the time place and manner of holding election by should be prescribed by law IL follows that tt W, act of the third legislative council purpOrting be change the time Of holding the elections from ti at first Wednesday of September io tfe first WedDesda CT of June not having for the above stated q nt force and effect of law the time Of holding any val n- election therefore unchanged. and valid ele ie tion could only be held on the hrst Wednesday n September The election of the Respondent to n be office of Recorder of the county of Pima being he rd the first Wednesday of Jane therefore wbol ,g unauthorized and void and gave 10 him legal tt a to the office Judgment must be entered for the Ts :. Tit0ry.

 = Judgment Is SO ordered