Arizona republican., 1913-04-05
COURT UPHOLOS
 sTHE GAME LAW
It Finds Itself Unable to Inquire Into Alleged h- regulalities Which Have Deprived Wood Allen of No Substantial Rights

The Arizona game law, enacted by
 the first legislature and ratified at
 the election last fall was yesterday sustained by the supreme court in
 affirming the decision of Judge Phil
 lips of the superior court of this county in the case of Wood Allen against the state of Arizona. All ap- peal was taken by Allen who it will be remembered, killed a quail not be- cause he was a sport but to see how strong the law was. There was no denial of the killing of the quail but it was asserted that there was no law making that act a crime. The opinion recites the history of i the legislation from the time of it's enactment by the legislature, through | the submission of it to the people, their ratification of it and the gov | ernor's proclamation.
 The first objection of the plaintiff i was that the measure was not sub mitted at a legal or proper election and the second, that it was not given | the publicity provided in the consti- l tuition and Was therefore null and 1 void
 The court stated that if the objec- l lions had been made in the early stages of the submission of the law l to the people for the reasons as signed the questions would have been subjects of judicial investiga ! ton and determination. The courts
 would then have had power to en- i force or restrain action and they l tizen Of the state.
 However" says the opinion, the | measure was submitted to the Vot-
 CTS without question: they were in vited to believe that the formalities pertaining to the submission of the
 law had been fully met. The eN- | pense of the election was incurred and the electors, imbued with the conviction that they Were performing
 one Of the highest functions of citi { zenship. and not going through a
 mere hollow form, We may assume, 1 investigated the question and went 1 to the polls and voted thereon" i ReCarding the character of the election at which the measure 1 should be submitted, that being general election, the opinion quotes from the law passed at the first 1 special session providing for gen l eraI election to be held last Nov em brr. at the time that the measure was actually submitted This law provided for the election of state and county officers and it will be remem kered that the law as 10 the cleo ton Of such officers was set aside rv the supreme court in the ease of the state against Osborn. The court states that that opinion did not hold the election law wholly incompatible with the constitution but held it to be valid legislation in so far as ii provided for the election of a repre- sentative in congress and presidential l electors The election held under that law was therefore a general l election.
 Regarding the contention that the
 measure was not given the degree of publicity required by the constitution, ! the court held that it was unneoes- sary to discuss what the law rr- quires in that respect. Neither would it so into the details of what was done and what was not done 1 by the administrative officers in the
 matter of giving publicity to the measure We believe" says the
 court that we are precluded from
 doing so on grounds of public policy logic. reason and by the law it. self"
 There follows an array of decisions
 on questions involving the constitu- ! tionaIity of the law. In short, the | cOurt held on this point that if d
 law was such q law as could have
 been enacted under the constitution, 1 inquiry could not be made as to the