Arizona republican., 1921-10-04
CLOSING ARGUMENTS LIN HOUSE BILL 83 PROCEEDINGS TODAY

opening arguments on an alter native writ of mandamus issued by the state supreme court last week against Ernest R. Hall, secretary of state. and citing him to show cause why he had not called a special cleo ton as provided in ''house bill S3," were heard by the supreme court yesterday afternoon Closing argu- ments will be made today, it is ex- pected.
 A yoluminous answer to the cita- ton was filed by attorneys repre- senting the secretary Of state Mon day morning. In order that plain- tiff's attorneys might have oppor- tunity to review the document, the Judges continued the hour for shear- Ing opening arguments until 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.
 Another feature of the days pro- ceedings in the supreme court was a request from Sam H. Kyle, a Phoenix attorney, formerly of Bisbee, to in- tervene on behalf of the secretary of state. His petition to intervene was denied but the court announced it would allow him to present his phase of the case.
 Kyle's motion to intervene hinges primarily on the issue of his ineli- gibility to vote at such a special election if it be called November &, as proposed. He points out that he is not registered in Maricopa county, although he was a qualified and reg istered voter in Cochise county for more than five years prior to 1920. Early Monday morning, the petition CT sets forth, he appeared before Edith M. Jacobs, country recorder of Maricopa county, and requested that he be registered. He was denied registration, he says, on the ground that the great register closed Before the general election of last year and, under me law tanno- De orene :. until May 15, 1922 unless a registra- tion be called by the board of super visors.
 In his answer to the citation, Sec retary of State Hall declares that house bill S3, as passed and approved by the governor, was never entered on the journal of the house together with the ayes and nays vote thereon. He denies that it was ever entered on the senate journal with the aye and nay vote, in compliance with the requirements of the constitution that such measures be so entered, as a preliminary action, before he could submit them to a vote of the people.
 He further claims that sections 2. and of the bill are Legislative" in character and therefore are sub- ject to the referendum and that a referendum was filed against section 4, which section referred to the spe- cial election and attempted to amend the general election was, and he says that such an amendment is uncon- stitutional in that the constitution
 +l~ rr-.k Rf r a <aT can be amended by mere reference to the act, but the act, as amended, must be set out in full.
 The answer, a 36-page document, also goes into som detail regard ing the matter of mailing pamphlets to registered voters. There are no funds now available for such ex- pense, he-declares.
 The suit was brought by W. F. Clements to enforce the secretary of state to call special election on Nov. 8. as provided in house bill S3. The bill has to do with issuance of state bonds to be exchanged for bonds of irrigation districts.
 The law firm of Alexander and Christy and E. S. Clark represent the plaintiff, with John l.. Gust, Walter Emmett and Will E. Ryan appearing for the defendant secretary of state.
 Opening arguments were made yesterday by MT. Christy for the plaintiff and Ryan and Gust for the defendant.