Arizona republican., 1912-07-16
The Election injunction.

The supreme court in making per manent the injunction against further proceedings with refer ence to a gen. eral election next November for the election of state. county and precinct officers has placed itself in an anomalous position, an unfortunate one and an unenviable one
 We are not finding fault with the opinion of the court, sustaining the injunction We are not attacking the motives of the court, nor are we questioning the avenue by which it arrived at the opinion handed down yesterday The position of the court is simply an unfortunate one which il ought not to have assumed but having assumed it. it is not our con- tention that it should have taken subsequently different course though by taking a different course 1t would have avoided the stigma which in the popular mind will in evitably attach to the proceedings which have resulted in the defeat of the election.
 Lawyers will not approve of the opinion and bar associations will not endorse it. We do not mean that they will contend that the result ought to have been different but the attorneys as a rule and bar associa- tiOns will fail to endorse the action of the court in permitting itself to be put into a situation never before occupied by a court in the judicial history of this country, that of sit ting in a matter in which it had a direct interest. The sOundness of the opinion is not to be disputed or even considered for that is all in the past and irrevocable. Lawyers can only say, Tt ought not to have been It is striking. revolutionary departure from the ancient law, the funda- mental law for the regulation of the conduct of the court"
 The case becomes the more ex- traordinary by reason of another cir cumsarce. Two members of the court were members of the constitutional convention and they participated in stitution relating to elections. It was the belief of all the members of the convention that a general cleo ton. in all probability, the first gen. eral election. would be held this year. Thus a majority of the court has assumed the remarkable and un- heard of task of passing upon a question involving not only the tenure of office of the majority but also the official acts of the majority Has such a thing ever happened before? And will it ever happen again?
 It would have been so easy to avoid. In the circumstances the court might well have hesitated to decide against the legislature, the political arm of the government and have left the decision as to the val idity of an election, held under the statute, to a later settlement by qua warranto Hele would have been an evasion Cf a task which could not have subjected the court to criticism
 In deciding against the legislature the court has committed one of those NsoE, 1,a sharpened the nation wide cry for the recall of the judiciary, interference in purely political questions, in de claring unconstitutional acts of the legislature intended to express the will of the people.
 More of this matter will be heard as the months go by,-when the election for the choice of presidential electors and for a representative ir congress is held at the time wher the voters expected to vote for can didates for the state and county of fices.
 The people will feel that some where in this proceeding they have been Him damned" In the use O. this frequently objectionable term we reiterate that we are not criti cising the opinion of the court anC we are not further dwelling upon tn unfortunate situation-out of whicl the opinion grew, for we know tha the court would not be made a part to any sort of a frame up. We ar only describing what we believe vii be the popular view, not of the de