Arizona republican., 1912-06-24

delay of one year in admission, and Of ) the holding of the first election is
 the very thing which postpones the next election until the first even year after admission, which will be 1914, and defeats the very point claimed 1 by the corporation organ Had an 1 election been held in 1911 there would l be no difference of opinion as to hold l ing an election this year.
 We present the foregoing not so ] much as the mouthpiece's side of 1 the case in which it is a deeply inter
 ested party, as a literary curiosity and a linguistic gem. If any reader of the mouthpiece has been able to find out precisely what it means that is more than we have succeeded in ascertaining. In the first place, it is proof against grammatical construc-
 ton but many things which cannot be construed according to the rules of grammar may be understood, but the foregoing is equally defiant of interpretation. We only know, be-
 cause we know why, that the mouth
 piece is against an election in Novem- Der.
 The situation with respect to the election is a very clear one There are certain things that we all know;
 even the mouthpiece ought to know
 them. One of them is that the en-
 abling act had nothing whatever to
 do with the date of any state elec-
 tion; that the constitution is in con-
 flict with itself as to the time of the
 second election, one clause putting the
 officeholders out of office on the first of next January and the other, stat
 ing that the second election shall be
 held in November of the first even
 numbered year after the year of ad-
 mission.
 It is equally well known that the
 members of the constitutional con-
 vention contemplated an election this
 year, for not a member believed that
 II NodIo DC POoolpIC bO llOiu OiIc
 earlier. It is known that the subject
 was brought up and widely discussed
 last fall before the calling of the elec-
 ton held in December and that a
 semi official opinion that there should
 be an election next November was
 tacitly, at least. accepted by all the
 candidates; that some of them alluded
 on the stump to the short terms they
 would have to serve, that several
 gentlemen declined to be candidates
 for that reason and that it was the
 unanimous understanding of the voters
 that they were voting for the candi- dates for only one year.
 Now. all this is very simple; the intent of the constitution makers; the tacit promises of the candidates. the
 understanding of the voters; the un- derstanding and wish of the governor, expressed sincerely or not, in his
 message and the expression of the legislature in favor of a November election. There is only one cOnfus- ing element and that is the absolute conflict in the constitution which can not be reconciled and therefore must be disregarded, unless we take into consideration the known intent to provide for an election this year. The mouthpiece of the governor manifests a curious sOlicitude for the taxpayer in this case and dwells upon the expense of the election The
 mouthpiece is not generally well in formed regarding things in general but it ought to know that We will have to bear the expense of an cleo tion for a president and representative in congress and on certain constitu- tional amendments. An election of state and county officers would en- | tail no other expense than the cost of making the ballots a little larger