Arizona republican., 1902-10-09

it was about the most exciting time in the history of the county. The people
 of Phoenix and of the greater portion
 of the county were wrought up to q high degree of wrath. There was little demand for the division anywhere with in the county but it came near going i through on account of the log-rollng processes by which so many crooked deals have gone through Arizona legis- latures.
 The bill was introduced by another i member of the Maricopa delega tion. Mr. J. c. Goodwin, and was known as House Bill No 7O.'' MT. Woolf sup ported 1t heartily The bill was intro duced on the 9th day of February, 1897. On the 3rd of March, following, it came up for consideration in the house. hav- ing been made a special order. The legislative journal, on page 2O6, gives this brief but juicy official account of the proceedings:
 "A motion to indefinitely postpone H. B. No. 70 was lost by the following aye and nay vote:
 "Ayes-Cowan. Goldberg, Hull Iken- berry, Jones, Parker, Preston. Rogers, Skinner Smith. MT. Speaker-11.
 ''Nays-Ashurst, Bernard, Finley, Goodwin. Hale. Mason, Mulvenon. Pat terson, Reppy, Riggs, Speed, Warren l-12
 'Absent-Woolf."
 In plain English, the opponents of the bill found themselves in the minority. and were unable to defeat 1t on the first test vote. How MT. Woolf hap pened to be absent when the house was voting on the bill in which he was so greatly interested, does not appear. But the unofficial history of the pro- ceedings shows that the people of Phoe- nix. who were taking an intense in- terest in the fate of the bill and were making a despairing effort to defeat it, rallied all their strength and influence to get a reconsideration of the vote. They prevailed upon MT. Ashurst to change his vote. and according to the journal, "A motion to reconsider the vote by which H. B. No. 70 was indef- nitely postponed was carried" Then follows ths record:
 HI. B. No. 70 on motion was indefi- nitely postponed by the following aye and nay vote:
 'Ayes-Ashurst. Cowan. Finley, Gold berg, Hull, IkenbArry, Jones. Patter- son. Parker. Preston. Rogers, Skinner, Smith. MT. Speaker-14.
 "Nays-Bernard. Goodwin. Hale. Ma son. MuIvenon. Reppy. Riggs, Speed, Warren, wOOLF-10."
 So, almost after superhuman efforts the division of Maricopa county was prevented. SO far as the assembly was concerned, by the narrow margin of two votes. MT. Woolfs vote was for division. but he was disappointed.
 Has he changed his mind? People who know him best would hesitate to believe it possible for him to change his mind. Who knows what combina- tions and schemes Maricopa county will have to combat in the Twenty second legislature? It is known that at least
  be pressed-that for the division of Gra- ham county. There may be others. | and certainly there will be dozens of pet bills on which combinations will be made. Should the fate of Maricopa county again hang in the balance, how do the people like the idea of leaving the decision to MT. Woolf? Democrats will try to argue, of course. that there is no reason now, for division. nor any sentiment in favor of it at Tempe, to speak of. That is true, and it was equally true six years ago. The citi- zens on the south side of the river were then apathetic on the question. It was Mr. Woolf and MT. Goodwin who were doing the mischief. Shall MT Woolf be given another chance to play the same role?
 It would be we'll to pass up "the gentleman from Butte"