Arizona republican., 1906-10-02
For Delegate to Congress Wm. F. Cooper
LAY LAWMAKERS

We are accustomed to hear some ex- traordinary constructions of law. some times called chimney corner law. The other day a writer in the Albuquerque Citizen, without any discernoble provo cation, explained how it had come about that the president and vice-president of the United States must belong to the same political party. II was not al ways so, said the Citizen writer; there was time when the constitution of the United States was silent regarding this matter but at last it took cognizance of the existence of political parties and was so amended that it became obligatory upon a successful party to elect EotA its candidate for president and vice-presi- dent. This information is not to be despised by party managers though it has been a long time enroute. It would probably not have arrived at all but for the digging oi the Citizen writ CT into the constitution at a hitherto unprospected spot.
 Our friend the Prescott Courier. also advances a legal opinion, though not dictum regarding the failure of the re- publican convention of Yavapai county to nominate candidates for delegates to the constitutional convention.
 It is the suspicion of the Courier that there was an insidious purpose by the republican convention to do something that would irIvalidate the statehood election in Yavapai county and so play into the hands of the jointists; that this project might have been success ful but for the action of the democratic convention in puttig up a delegate ticket
 We may pass over the previous agree ment between the democratic and re- publican committees of Yavapaf county that there should be a joint delegate ticket. four candidates to be named by the democrats and three by the re- publicans It is unnecessary to recall that this agreement was turned down by the democratic convention, a majority of whose members declare that they de- sired no association with the repub- Hcans even in so laudable and patriotic an enterprise as fighting joint state hood; that they then nominated seven simon pure democrats; that a ticket thus having been constructed, the re- publican convention properly decided that 1t would be better for the anti joint statehood cause to have one such ticket in the field than two.
 We may pass over all the foregoing well authenticated facts and come di- rectly to the question of the possible invalidation of the statehood election in the event that there had been no delegate ticket at all.
 The law only indirectly authorizes the printing of the names of the can didates for delegates on the statehood ballot. It does not anywhere declare except by reference that they shall be put upon the ballots but it provides that lon the same ballots" the question, Shall Arizona and New Mexico be united to form one state?" The election shall be on that naked proposition. If there Is pre- ponderance of noes" over "yeses, that is the end Of the matter In the other event. for then and not otherwise" says the bill, the machinery of the nev, state is to be begun to be set up.
 Again, it is plain that if the ballots all bore delegate tickets and no one should designate the name of any can didate, the result would be determined by the noes" and yeses" It would still be so determined if the candidates were elected to the constitutional con vention.