Arizona republican., 1912-07-21
THE DECISION
 |TS REAL EVIL
A Precedent Is Set by Which the Will of the People of Arizona Might Be Frequently and In definitely ThWarted

] very lew people realize the real
 meaning of the decision of the su- preme court in the recent election
 case I do not desire to impute to l the court any sinister design or any deliberate intention to err. but judges ! are human and as such are prone to
 err unconsciously. In this instance
 they made their first mistake in ever assuming jurisdiction of the matter. | The interest each judge had in the
 result was bound to sway him at least 1 subconsciOusly and caused him to | lean, by a sort of auto suggestion. to ] that construction that was to his own advantage.
 If the only result were the stirling of the wishes of the people for an election at this time, comparative little harm would result We have 1 set of state officials, such as they are, and if one of the results of the 1 decision should be the termination of the present legislature it would be by no means an unmiXed evil. But we 1 must go further and look into the results. The court has set a prece- dent new in the political and judicial history of the country. It has aS- stunned authority to dictate as to the ! election shall be held and the pOss- ble results, when We contemplate the matter. are startling.
 If the court arrogates to itself the right to decide upon it's own tenure of office and in so deciding retains the administration, with which it is inseparably affiliated, in office for two fears more then it is reasonable ,1t ;,,ta ,l hot ie. to hinder it's perpetuating itself and the administration indefinitely. Mind now that I impute no such intention to the present court but am looking into the future. Is it not within the bounds of possibility that some tech
 nicality may be discovered in 1914 or some other election year in the fu ture and by means of an injunction the administration may restrain an election and hold over for two years more Suppose for the purposes of illustration the secretary of state were to draw his call for election in such manner that it would not follow the law as prescribed in such matters Here is another techncality which under the precedent as laid down by the court would be ground for in junction proceedings and by which | the wishes of the people would be 1 again defeated.
 The average citizen, not being edu- cated in the law, and therefore not ' familiar with the rules covering the
 various forms of action and the con 1 struction and interpretation of laws cannot understand how grave the sit nation really is An injunction is | what is known in the law as an eX- l traordnary remedy and is only to be | issued in that class of cases where 1 irreDarable damage or injury is inn 1 pending and where. in event of such damage or injury, the person injured | could not be compensated by an ac- | tion at law and an award of damages | Tn other words. it is usually issued
 where some rights of the individual
 or applicant are threatened for which money damages would not be an | adeouate compensation This being | the case would an injunction lie in
 this matter? What great and irrep- arabic wrong or injury would result i to the people of the state of Arizona | from the holding of this election and what fundamental rights of theirs
 would have been infringed? Would l it have done such violence to the 1 constitution as to have been an in l frineement upon the liberties of the | people? A constitution is a delega- | tion of authority from the sovereign, ! the people. to their representatives. 1 Tn it they simply say, This far shalt | thou go but no farther" They retain unto themselves certain fundamental rights upon which the legislative. eX- ecutive or judicial authority shall not | encroach. Would the holding of an election have been an encroachment? The contrary as a matter of fact IS true The strong arm of equity has been invoked and that great club, the injunction, has been used for the very opposite purpose than that for which if was fashioned Instead of being used to prevent the infringement of a right,-that of peaceable assem- blaze and of freedom of elections.
 TO go a little further into the mat
 ter It is a rule of construction and interpretation of laws that whenever statute and constitution or either of them is capable of two construc- tions the construction that will square
 the two together is the one to be
 adopted by the court. Any fair
 minded unbiased man, be he either
 lawyer or layman, can readily see
 that as to this election matter that
 the constitution could have been con-
 strued either way without doing 1t
 violence or infringing on any funda-
 mental right of the sovereignty, the
 people A law was framed by the
 legislature providing for an election
 not prohibited by the constitution
 and which, under one construction of
 the constitution and without doing |
 any violence to it could have been |
 upheld It was the duty of the court, |
 even if it did have a right to inter |
 fere and even if it had not been sit
 ting to determine it's own tenure of l
 office, to so construe the constitution
 under the circumstances, as to hold
 the law valid If that part of it re- l
 lating to canvassing board and the |
 determination of contests was un |
 constitutional the old law would pre- |
 vail Recolect that there have been |
 other elections held in Arizona under |
 existing laws.