Arizona republican., 1912-07-12
Opinion of Assistant Attor- ney General Carpenter as to the Morenci Petition Which Was Not Accom- panied by a Certificate
TT IS ALLOWABLE TO
 CURE THAT DEFECT
AS to Later Received Peti- tions It Is Decided That the Placing of Them in the Mails Does Not Con stitute a Filing

Whether the anti- Mexican labor bill gets before the people as an initiative measure this fall depends uron whether there shall be a gen. eral election in November.
 The law requires that petitions of this character shall be submitted at the next regular election after the same shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state So if is apparent that if there be no election next November the Kinney bill, or any bill embodying it's provisions. cannot be submitted prior to Novem- Der, 1914.
 The facts regarding the Morenci petitions which cut quite a figure in this case are as follows: These petitions arrived at the office of the secretary the morning of July , and were therefore in time for the names to be counted But it was found on examination that the proper cer- tlficate had not been attached Lewis T. Carpenter, assistant district at torney general, however, in an Opin- ion on this subject, says there can be no objection to the attaching of certificate after the petition has been filed.
 Another point, whether the placing in the mails of a petition constitutes filing within the purview of the law, has been decided in the negative by the assistant attorney general, who says the word fixing" is to be given it's ordinary meaning So, it will be seen, the names on the pc titions arriving late could not be counted. The full text of Mir Car penter's opinion is as follows:
 July II, 1912. Hon. Sidney p. Osborn, Secretary of
 State, Phoenix, Arizona.
 Dear Sir: Your request for the opinion of this office, filed herein July 9th, upon several questions re- lating to the initiative petitions which have been filed in your office, has had careful consideration. I beg to advise you as fallows:
 Subdivision of Section l of Arti- cle ", under the head of legislative department in the constitution relat- ing to this subject is as follows: "(D All petitions submitted under the power of the initiative shall be known as initiative petitions, and shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months pre- ceding the date of the election at which the measures so proposed are | to be voted upon."
 From the foregoing. it will be seen that all petitions must be filed with | nf loss than four months preceding the date of | the election upon which they are to | be voted upon. Inasmuch as the ] provisions of the constitution are | mandatory the question of whether | or not the petitions were so filed be- l comes an important question. There ! is a we'll established uniform mean | ing to the word filled" used with l relation to papers in the sense em- 1 ployed in the constitution which, l applied to the article of the con- 1 stitution in question, simply means | that the initiative petitions shall be l placed in the office of the secretary | of state not less than four months, | and so on.
 | In the case of Ward vs Hearly, | reported in 42 Pacific Reporter, page 1 1O71, it is said:
 l Again it is contended that the 1 printed transcript was in the office 1 of the Wells Fargo and company in l transit to the clerk of this court for l filing when the motion to dismiss \ was served. and for that reason the \ motion should be denied. Placing the document in the office of Wells 1 Fargo and company was not the | equivalent of filing, and it cannot be | considered as filed when so placed 1 The principle announced in the foregoing decision is of general ap- plication, and particularly in view of the fact that the provision of the constitution is mandatory, I do not believe it can be said that a petition was filed in the office of the sec
 retary of state before it reached him
 or reached his office.
 Again, I note that you say that a
 petition from Morenci, not acknoWl- edged in any place, was filed in the
 office on the morning of July, and
 request information as to whether or
 not this petition can be considered a
 part of the general petition. I beg
 to advise that it is our opinion that
 this petition cannot be considered for 1 any purpose until it is acknowledged
 as the constitution requires; but il
 may be that the petition may be ac- knowledged after it is filed and thus | I1Cz 1A