Arizona republican., 1912-07-06
Arguments Heard in the Superior Court on Appli- cation for Injunction Re
 straining Secretary From Issuing Call for Primaries
STRONG POINT MADE
 BY MIR. CARPENTER
There Is Nothing in the Constitution With Which the Legislative Election Act Could Be Found to Be in Conflict

So far as the superio" court is con- cerned it win be known today whether the law providing for an electiCn of state. county and precinct officers the coming November is valid or invalid. The question was argued yesterday for several hours before Judge Phillips, who will hand down his decision prob ably just after court conVeneS this morning. There is little doubt that, regardless of the finding of Judge Phil lips, the case will be taken to tie su- preme court.
 AS already intimated the argument was of considerable length It began shortly after two o'clock and lasted until wei along toward six. Attorney Barnum, representing H. A. Da"iS, ap- peared for the relatOr. Attorney Car Irenter. of the attorney generals office, appeared for Secretary Osborn. And then there was Wiley Jones of Flor ence, who represented the citizens gen. orally.
 A great deal might be written re- garding the argument but it would be of little interest to anyboIN. The ad- dress of the attorneys contained in the main the same contentious that have been made over and over again ever since this dispute began Judge Phil lips may have been profoundly in structed by these arguments but if he was he gave no sign. The judge. how ever, furnished considerable amuse- ment when he plaintively inquired of the attorneys what effect the candi- dates pre-election promises would hay. on the construction of the law. He said he had told his constituents that he was trying only for the short term and he wanted the attorneys to tell him if that should be taken into consideration when constructing the law.
 The judge was assured that pre-elec- ton promises made no difference--tE an office holder has the right to change his mind as often as he pleases.
 The case came up on a motion to dis solve the temporary injuction, restrain ing the secretary of state from issuing notices for an election the coming fall. MT. Carpenter opened the argument. The entire case is dependent in large measure upon Section II of Article sev- cn of the constitution which reads as follows:
 There shall be a general election of representatives in congress and e state. county, and precinct officers on the first Tuesday after the first Mon day in November of the first even num- bered year after the year in which Arizona is admitted to statehood and biennially thereafter"
 MT. Carpenter called attention to the fact that the language conained in the election law is almost identical with that of the constitution, with the eX- ceptiOn of the fact that it fixes a time certain for holding the election. The contention made by him is that while the constitution specifically authorizes an election in 1914 there is nothing in it's provisions that prohibits an election prior to that time if the legislature so provides Tt is rule of law" said Mir. Carpenter" that if effect can be given to both the constitution and a statute, that must be done" He also called attention to another part of the constitution which provides that the first set of officers should serve until the first Monday in January, 1913, and also to the fact that the constitution specifically provides the first Iegisla- ture shall exist only until Jan. l. 1913 MT. Carpe nter argued that it is incon- ceIVabie that the constitution makers would let the legislative power lapse which, he said. would be done if the contention made by the opponents of an election is sound.
 Mir Barnum argued that it is clearly the intent of the constitution that the first election held under that instrument shall be in 1914 and that if the convention had intended there should pc an election before that time it would have been stated. MT Barnum de- voted considerable time tOcitations from decisions by Justice Marshall and to quotations from other of the great law writers. He took direct issue with MT. Carpenter that the legislature has au- thority ,o do whatever it is not forbid den to cso and argued for a strict con struction of the constitution that would permit the legislature to do only what it is authorized to do
 Jones spent much of his time in mak- ing progressive speech He attacked Chief Justice Marshall who, he said, belonged to the Hamilton school of government. Jones, however, agued for an election. Barnum suggested that his anxiety about the matter is due hold office himself but is anxious to annex one.
 
 tnntinIaH !