mediately attorneys for Mr. Peddy filed application for writ of error with the Supreme Court on the ground that such a decision could not legally be given on a Sunday. However, at 3:30 P. M. of November 6th the Supreme Court overruled without written opinion the motion of the appellees. This, of course, had the effect of sustaining the action of the Dallas Court in dissolving the injunction against certifying Mr. Mayfield's name as the Democratic nominee. Advantage of the lull in the battle was immediately taken by the chief clerk of the State Department, the Secretary of State being absent, and Mr. Mayfield's name was certified to the county authorities by means of telegrams.

As a result of the long continued uncertainty involved in this battle of injunctions, the last minute settlement of the controversy did not come sufficiently early to permit many of the counties to print ballots bearing Mr. Mayfield's name. In many counties, however, Mr. Mayfleld's name had earlier been printed on the ballot after the first decision of the Supreme Court and the early certification of Mr. Mayfield's name by Secretary of State Staples. In others, duplicate sets of ballots had been printed; one set bearing Mr. Mayfield's name, and the other set bearing no name on the ballot as a senatorial nominee. It seems that on the whole, about one-half of the counties in the state had ballots bearing Mr. Mayfield's name as democratic nominee. Final count of the election returns has not yet been made, but at present it seems that Mr. Mayfield's majority over Mr. Peddy will be about 115,000 out of a total of some 300,000 votes.

The conclusions to be drawn from this election controversy are obvious. In the first place, it demonstrated very clearly the need of a thorough revision of the present laws referring to elections. In a number of respects these laws, if not directly conflicting, are at least far from clear (see especially Articles 3084 and 3174e, Revised Civil Statutes). It is worthy of note that even before this contest the State Democratic Convention proposed a plank reading as follows: 16. "The provisions of the existing election laws of the State of Texas have been found to be ineffective and restric

tive of the free and just expression of the will of the people of Texas, and we urge upon the Legislature the revision and enactment of such laws as will meet the will of the people."

A second conclusion is one that has already been pointed out editorially by the Dallas News. That is the fact that the law has been leniently administered, so far as the holding of primary elections are concerned, as long as the Republican party has been weak and almost insignificant. This is illustrated by the fact that the name of the Republican nominee for United States Senator was placed on the ballot in both 1916 and 1920 without the holding of a general nominating primary. However, this lax enforcement of the law is discontinued as soon as the Republican party becomes a formidable opponent. Certainly a law which permits such varying interpretation is badly in need of revision.

PLATFORM OF THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR 1922.The platform adopted by the Democrats of the state in convention assembled in the city of San Antonio on September 5th and 6th of this year is important mainly for the total absence of any reference to the one issue of outstanding interest at the time. As has been referred to above, the steam rolling of the convention by those opposed to the adoption of any sort of anti-Ku Klux plank aided in bringing about a split in the party, so far, at least as the Senatorial race was concerned. So far as the provisions actually found in the platform are concerned, these are saved from almost entire colorlessness by the advocation of a new constitution for Texas, the simplification of court procedure, of a more effective control by the Governor over local officers charged with the enforcement of state law, and for the revision of the election laws of the state. Rather indefinite retes ences are also made to the desirability of cooperative marketing, the improvement of the highway system of the state, conservation of natural resources, cooperation between the state and cities to the end of better regulation of public utilities, and the securing of better educational facilities.

The traditional statement is made in favor of continued adherence to the doctrine of the "autonomy of the States and

their unsurrendered sovereignty," but the only plank carrying out this declaration of policy is that favoring the repeal of the Esch-Cummings Act and the restoration of the rate making power to state commissions. This, it will be remembered, was the main issue stressed by Mr. Mayfield throughout the course of his race. However, Sections 8, 9, 11, and 15 contain statements not in accordance with this state rights policy, for these sections either favor the extension of Federal power or express approval of laws already passed by the Federal Government extending the powers and functions of the Federal authorities.

NOTES FROM ARKANSAS

PREPARED BY DAVID Y. THOMAS

University of Arkansas

At the general election (October 3) Governor McRae, Democrat, was re-elected with a vote of 99,987 to 28,055 for J. W. Grabiel, Republican. The total vote for both candidates was less than the Democratic vote in the primary by 50,481.

Three amendments were voted on and all were defeated. The vote on No. 13, an extensive revision of the initiative and referendum, was 38,890 for, 61,112 against; No. 14, removing the limit on taxation for school purposes and providing for radical changes in administration, 14,244 for, 88,703 against; No. 15, subjecting personal property to taxation for improvements, 28,813 for, 31,811 against. The first two were submitted by petition. Two years ago the revised initiative and referendum received a good majority of the vote cast on it, but not a majority of the total vote. The educational amendment was hopelessly abandoned by its promoters soon after the campaign opened. It is difficult to explain the comparatively small vote cast on the amendment subjecting personal property to taxation for improvements. One guess is that many people were unable to decide whether it was right or wrong and avoiding voting on it.

The state central committee has changed the basis of representation in the state convention from one delegate for every 175 votes or fraction thereof amounting to 90, to one for every 400 or fraction thereof amounting to 200.

The state convention met at Hot Springs, endorsed Governor McRae's administration and adopted a platform largely of his making. It calls for the abolition of useless offices, boards, and commission, the substitution of honorary boards in a number of cases for paid boards, the abolition, "as far as practicable," of the general property tax for state purposes and the raising of state funds by "extending the system of excise taxation on inheritances, corporation franchises, insurance premiums, and similar privileges," and the enactment of a severance or gross production tax. In other states where there are two strong parties it is customary for the outs to "view with alarm" the acts of the ins. In Arkansas the Democratic convention "deplores" several things for which the Democratic party is responsible, among them the abuse of local legislation and the results of bad legislation for good roads and advises the repeal of all local acts for the creation, of road and bridge districts.

NOTES FROM OKLAHOMA

PREPARED BY MIRIAM E. OATMAN
Norman, Oklahoma

STATE BONUS DEFEATED.-A bill proposing an amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma, authorizing the payment to Oklahoma veterans of the World War, of $50 for each month of service was defeated in the recent election. It is said that a similar bill, providing for a bonus of $30 a month, will be introduced into the next session of the legislature which will convenue in January.

OKLAHOMA'S GOVERNOR ELECT.—At the November election, Mayor J. C. Walton of Oklahoma City was chosen as governor, M. E. Trapp as lieutenant governor, George F. Short as attorney general, and R. A. Sneed as secretary of state.

These candidates were all Democrats, and their elec

tion was in part the result of a tendency to "return to the fold" on the part of many who voted the Republican ticket in 1920.

"Summed up in brief-here's the results, democrats win state ticket in its entirety; elect seven democratic congressmen to the national legislative body thereby regaining four seats that were lost in 1920; add one democratic member to the state supreme court besides re-electing two former democratic members of that body; increase or at least hold a large majority of the district judges throughout the state's thirty judicial districts; increase a lead of ten members in the upper house to eighteen and maybe nineteen members; and turn the erstwhile republican house of representatives over to the democrats with a majority of at least sixty members the last legislature's republican majority was only eighteen." (Harlow's Weekly, Nov. 11, 1922).

But the reaction toward the Democratic party is not alone sufficient to explain the election of Walton by a majority almost twice as large as any obtained previously by a candidate for the same position in this state. Walton was bitterly opposed, not only by the Republican candidate John Fields, but by many prominent Democrats, who were alarmed by his so-called "radical" or "Socialistic" tendencies; and he undoubtedly received much less support from his own party than did some of his fellow-nominees. However, he received a very large number of votes from the Farmer-Labor Reconstruction League, whose platform he endorsed at a convention in Shawnee several months ago. The League placed itself solidly behind him; and there is no doubt that the reputation for liberal or radical ideas which he gained by his dealings with this organization won him a great many votes which might otherwise have gone to the Socialist party. Walton, then, is more than the leader of Oklahoma's Democrats; he is a man pledged to an attitude toward labor which, "dangerously radical," or "splendidly progressive" as one may consider it, is certainly vastly different from any pledge which has ever bound a governor-elect in Oklahoma.