Bisbee daily review., 1916-08-23
should be applied.

should be applied.
 This conclusian seems tO me to be the reasonable one, and also support ed by the only analogous case have been able to nnd-Re Ward. 20 \. r.. Supp. COS. Tn that case the court says. "A judicial officer wL0 has pow CT to revise a ministerial action of a Board of Inspectors. does not. by the statutc. gain a power to do a thing which the Board of Inspectors might not do, for their power is statutory. and is limited to the correction of an error which would not have taken place but iJr the invalid action oi the Board Of Inspectors. The statute did not seek to give other power, but eX- pressly provides that the power of the judicial officer may be exercised only if the Board refuse to strike from the list the name Of the person u0t SO qualified to vote .. The logical conclusion, therefore, in evitably follows that a judge may not, by such statutory power. strike a name from the list which the inspec- tors of election could not strike from the register.
 See also People eN rel Smith V York. ct al, GS \. |. Supp. I'll as bearing on the general principle in yolyed
 l realize that the law may work q hardship on some electors, but courts must construe laws as they are, and not as they should be. The proper appeal of the elector in cases like this is to the Legislature. and not to the courts. The voter who has hon estly changed his mind since reei5tra- lion should console himself with the language of the Supreme Court of California in Schostag Gator, ct al, al Pac. 502. a somewhat similar mat ter. in which the court says: Tt is coltended that the test prescribed by section 1866 is unreasonable, because with the close Of registration. the eIectoG loses his right to change his party allegiance in consequence Of a change il his political convictions, and ' is Dreci uded from iakiu- part in the election of delegates tO tEc conEen- lion ul tae party Vi,h which ol the day Oi election his more matUcot opluio1 would impel him to east in his lot This inconvenience certainly aoes result from the provisions Oi the iact. but the legislature. which must be presumed Co have foreseen i,, pro 'Eably regarded such sudden couver- sion during the short interval between the close of registration and the date of tle primary election as likely ,s
 be of such rare occurrence as not co justify the omission ol a proyision evidently desi-ncd Co prevent uu- scrupuloIs and morc,uary electors
 rom holding themselves free down 10 the day O. election Co vote with any party, upon any corrupt motive. for the purpose of inhuencin- Che nOuiu- atiou ot it's candidates for public ol- ncc while without any interest in their success, and perhaps with au iu-
 terest iu their defeat L i s-all
 sometimes happen that consciou-
 o-- voter is converted from one
 political iaiih Co another between tIe
 close ol registration and the primary election. ho uay console himself ior
 The loss Of his vote ty jhc reflection
 ,bat hts loss Is triun- D, comparison
 Go uis share of -no advantage To tho
 state ol which he is citizen, dowms from a measure which tends tO pre- vent grave abuse
 This laneua-e is so pertinent Co oar own situation before the enactment ol
 tho present law and pQw Ina, '.
 would almost seem t6 be lhadS for the occasion.
 The demurrer to the complaint Is
 sustained.