The Arizona sentinel. [volume] (Arizona City [Yuma], Yuma County, A.T. [Ariz.]) 1872-1911, 1891-03-21

PHOENIX, Mar. 13, 1891.
To the Honorable; the Council Of
the 10th Legislate Assembly Of
Arizona:
Ireturn Council Bill No. 47,with-
out approval.
1t is bill that if approved, the
Executive could not defend on any
ground whatever.
The Upper House in all Ameri-
can Legislative bodies is supposed
to be representation Of the politi-
cal subdivisions of our system.
Thus Rhode Island has the same
number of Senators as New York,
Delaware the same as Pennsyl-
vania; the representation of the
Senate or Upper House having
reference only to the State-the
political sub-division-and not to
population or voting power.
This bill practically, though not
nominally, deprives the less popu-
lous counties of the Territory of
any representation in the Council.
For instance the county of Mari
copa will practically dictate to the
counties of Yuma and Mohave their
members of the Council. It is also
doubtful whether or not this bill is
not unconstitutional, in that the
vote Of one county elects mem
Der of the Council for another
county. At any rate the doubt is
sufficient to raise the question, and
thus lead to costly contests and
endless litigation.
AS to the representation in the
Lower House permitted by this
bill, [ have to say that it is un-
precedented in American history.
1t is based on neither the popula-
ton nor the voting power of the
different counties.
American Legislative representa-
tion in all the lower or popular
bodies is based everywhere upon
population. 1t is not the purpose
nor the spirit of our institution to
represent the voter alone, our
Lower House in Congress and in
the State Legislature represent the
entire population, men, women and
children.
This bill establishes hap-haz-
ard representation; for instance the
county of Gila, with a total popula-
ton of 2,021, has two representa-
tives under this bill, while the
county of Pinal, with a total popu-
lation of 4,25l, has but one. The
population of Maricopa county is
10,9S6, yet it is given four repre-
sentatives while the county of
Pima, with population of 1858,
is only given four. Graham, with
a population of 500, has two rep
resentatives, while Gila, with only
a population of 2,021 has also two.
Apache, with a population of
5,2S1, has only the same represen-
tation as Gila with population Of
less than one-half.
That is: In effect the bill says
that a fraction Of four-ffths in
Maricopa county equals one in
representative power in Pima
county, and that one-half in Gila
county equals one IN Plnal; and
that one-third in Gila equals one
in Graham, and that about 1890
people in CochiSe equal in power
1880 in Pima; and 200 people in
Maricopa evual in power $3.50 in
Pima; and 1000 people in Gila
equal in power over 1000 in
Apache. These instances above
cited are only the most glaring in
consistencies Of the bill.
For the above reasons, and that
it is un-American, unprecedented,
un-Democratic, unjust and indie
fensable and that it is a denial of
representation to the counties, in
The first place, and to the people
in the second, l decline to approve
the bill.
JOHN n. IRWIN,
Governor.
Where, oh! Where is Harris
Baldwin?
Not in the United States Senate
in '96, as he thinks. Is he the
man9