Arizona republican., 1911-09-09
RULE OF LAW IS APPLIED
Continued. from Page one.)

There is still another statute which bears upon this question and which will remain in full force and effect after our admission as a state until repealed by the legislature Section | 3 of chapter 24 of the laws of 1909,
 known as the primary law. provides that a primary shall be held on the first Tuesday of September, 1910. and ibiennially thereafter for the nomina- ton of all candidates to be voted for al the next ensuing November cleo tion. Therefore, both a general cleo tiOn and a primary election must be held under the laws recognized by the lccnstitution as remaining in full force and effect unless it be held that both the election law and the primary law in these particulars be repugnant to
 the terms of said section II of article | I7 To be repugnant there must exist an irrecOnciable contradiction or in- consistency between the statutes and the constitutional provision quoted. As I have said the latter in itself does not prohibit the holding of general election other than the first
 state election during the year in which the state is admitted. Indeed it's pur- pose ws doubtless quite otherwise. To make my meaning clear. suppose that said section of the constitution pro vided in effect that there should be a general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in No lvember of the first odd numbered year after the year of our admission, and Annually thereafter. What would then be it's meaning, assuming that by the expressed terms of the constitution the terms of office of state and county officers including those first elected were made to terminate on the first
 Monday in January beginning with the | year 1913. Would it not then appear
 that the makers of the constitution had in mind merely to provide that after a definite year annual elections should be held instead of biennial elections as now provided by law. In other words. is it not evident that the makers of the constitution intend ed to provide in the present instance for biennial elections on even number
 ed years following the year of admis-
 sion, and did not intend to prohibit. meanwhile the holding of any general election which the existing law might otherwise provide for. It certainly was not intended in any possible event that the state and county officers
 elected at the first election should continue to hold office for two years
 after their terms Of office should ex-
 pire. or that the state should be for
 two years without a legislature The fact that the system of biennial cleo tions now in force was adopted by
 the section in question and continued
 does not. it seems to me, after the case.
 Considering therefore. all the pro- visions of the constitution relating to
 this subject. it seems to me. clear that
 the intent of the framers of the con- stitution was not tO prohibit the hold | ing of a general election on the first | Tuesday fter the first Monday in No
 vember. 1912. as provided by law.
 should the state be admitted after
 January lst of that year On the con
 trary. assuming that our election laws
 shall not be repealed by the first leg
 islature, such an election is amply provided for