The copper era. (Clifton, Graham County, Ariz.) 1899-1911, 1903-02-26
NO PRIMARY
ELECTION LAW.
A Red Hot Time in the House
Bill Defeated by a Tie.

4
Bill Defeated by Tie.
/ The following interesting account Of
the defeat of the primary election bill
is from the Phoenix Republicon:
it is the opinion of Mr.. St. Charles
that the word OF some democrats In
convention assembled is not worth the
paper it is written on if it is put in
the shape of a declaration of princi-
piles. His primary election bill was
defeated by a tie vote. The bill was
introduced early in the session. 1t
was amended 40 many times that 1t
was hardly recognizable in the meas
ure that came before the house. Half
the members of the house had some-
thing to do with remodeling it and it
was thought that it would be salts
factory to them at least. When it
was up for the third reading the dis
cussion had not proceeded far before
it became evident that there was not
unanimity OF opinion. Mr.. St. Charles
made the first speech and at times
grew acrimonious and personal. He
relied mainly on the Tucson platform
which promised the people Of Arizona
primary election law. He believed
all the people wanted it, except the
professional politicians. He reminded
the house from time to time that he
was talking more particularly t) the
democratic members for they had rot
shown the least inclination so far to
observe party pied ges.
Mr.. Whiteside replied not TO the re-
marks concerning the platform but op-
posed the bill on the ground that it
would entail an expense on the terri
tory Of from $50, 900 to SO 1000. He
read a lot OF letters from his constitu
ents protesting against the bill. One
of them stated that the Trainer OF the
bill must have had more time than
brains. 1t was here that the trouble
set in. Mr.. St. Charles attacked the
motives of the gentleman from Santa
Cruz and denounced correspondents
who incorporated such language ana
literature INTO epistolary correspond
ence.
Mr.. Webb made a point of order
that the argument was becoming per-
sonal, but the point was not sustained.
Speaker Powers spoke at length in
behalf of the bill and Mr.. Webb re-
piled. He regretted that any allusion
was made to the Tucson platform.
That was a matter which might have
been properly talked about in a demo-
cratic caucus. But in the house the
memb bers were not representatives of
democrats or republicans but OF the
whole people. Though he had been
nominated before the adoption of the
territorial platform he felt to some eX-
tent bound by it but he did not want
it interpreted for him by the gentle
man from Mohave, or any other man.
He was also in favor Of Il primary
election law but did not believe that
the bill now before the house was the
only one. Mr. ST. Charles replied that
it was the only one before the house.
He asked Mr.. Webb if he was not
member OF the Tucson convention.
Mr. Webb replied that he was but that
he had no voice in the declaration of |
principles.
Mr.. ST. Charles like to see
convention in which Mr.. Webb didn't !
have voice in
An effort was made To have the bill /
go over for a day, another to have it
re-referred but they were opposed by /
those in favor of it. On motion of the |
opponents it went 10 vote as follows: |
Collins, Cowan, Herr, /
Henry, Marlar, Morrison, Parr, Rowe,
st. Charles, the Speaker
l.. Nays-Bernard, Gonzales. Howell, |
Ingalls,, O'Connell, Page, Lamont, !
Roemer, Webb, Whiteside. Williams, /
Woolf-l2.
On the following day Mr.. Woolf |
moved to have the bill recommitted.
He said he was opposed to the bill in
its present form but believed it could |
be amended so that it would meet all
objections. The motion to reconsider
was carried by vote of II to 9.