Arizona republican., 1917-03-15
LEGALITY Of CITY NOMINATIONS
QUESTIONED; HOT WORDS FOLLOW

Almost any sort of a situation might
arise out of the placing of the names
of William a. Work, William r. Dav-
export and Edwin c. Moore on the
ballot of the recent primary election.
It may result in invalidating the entire
proceedings it may leave only Charles
II. Dunlap, George N. MacBean and
William B. Lount as the only three
candidates eligible to have their names
printed on the general election ballot,
or it may leave the status of Work and
Davenport as it appeared to be after
the primary election, when both by
good votes seemed assured of nominal
ton with Dunlap and MacBean
All this because of the announcement
at the meeting of the city commission
yesterday morning that neither Work
Davenport nor Moore had complied
with the provisions of the election laws
requiring the filing of affidavits of ex-
pense before the primary election. Sec
ton 1929, Title II, Revised Statutes of
1913. says:
Candidates before any primary cleo
ton shall file, together with the nom
nation petition herein provided for
with the officer with whom such petit
ton is filed the name of each and ev-
cry individual, with his postoffice adj
dress, by, or through whom, such can
didateS have expended or propose to
eXpend money in defraying the eX-
penses of their campaigns. Should any
candidate determine not to authorize
or appoint any such person or persons
to eXpend money or other things Of
value for him, in or during his cam
paign, he shall, instead of filing such
name or names, notify such officer that
he has not authorized, and will not
2uthorize. any person so to act for
him, but that he will i'll person account
for all the money or other things of
value expended in the interest of his
candidacy. Should any candidate fail
to file such names or information his
name shall not be printed upon the Of
ficial ballot in such primary election
Matter Comes to Head
The whole matter came to a head
when the commission having can
Vassed the vote of the primary election,
had presented to it for adopting a Ger
tificate Of nomination. Commissioner
Jones inquired if all papers required by
law had been properly filed by the can
didates before the primary election.
This brought out the statement that
neither Davenport Work nor Moore
had complied with this requirement.
q. T.. y
read the law but stated he would not
care to give an opinion in the matter
without having consulted City Attorney
r. E. Sloan.
ThereupOn Jones moved. seconded by
Dunlap, that the matter be referred TO
| the city attorney. MacRean, Jones and
Dunlap voted in the affirmative and
! Woods in the negative Nice-C Chair
man MacRean, acting in the absence
Of Mayor COrpstein, declared the mo-
/ ton carried Incidentally he stated
1 that as far as he was concerned he
was willing that the matter should be
dropped and the general election be al
, lowed to proceed as though there was
no question of the regularity Of the
! primary election. But City Attorney
Sloan had been sent for and when lie
arrived he stated that he did not care
/ to give an opinion off hand without
having looked up the law.
And then the fun started Commits
sioner Woods stated that he thought
: the whole matter was frame-Iip. and
moved that the certificate I've approved
| There was no second to his motion AT
! torney Sloan said that he was willing
to give an opinion if the commission
| desired il but that he had his dignity tC
maintain and that he proposed t.
maintain it. He would take time be-
fore giving an opinion. He said hc
! had left an important case in court t,
; appear before the commission and thai
! he was not there to be insulted with re-
4, marks about being a party to a frame
up even if those remarks were made
! by commissioner. The heated discus
sion was not confined to remarks BIZ
Attorney Sloan and Commissioner
Woods. but involved the other com
miSsiOnerS. 1t ended when ATTORNEY