Arizona republican., 1909-03-03
SENT 10 THE COUNCIL
The Bill Found to Be Con- trary to the Spirit of the Gadsden Treaty as Well as to the Spirit of Fair ness.

The following are the objections of | Governor Kibbey to the Hampton ed ucational qualifications bill submitted in his message to the legislature yes terday:
 | To the council of the Twenty-fifth
 legislative assembly of the territory of Arizona:
 l return to you herewith the bill passed by the legislature, being bill numbered 60 of the council, entitled | An act to amend paragraphs 2,2S2, | 2,2S4, 2,2S5, 2.2SS and 2.2S9. chapter III, | title 20, Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1 1901, relating to qualifications of cleo | tors, and paragraphs 2,374 and 2.375. | chapter K. title 20. Revised Statutes of Arizona, relating to voting and challenging" without my approval, be- cause of my objections thereto, which state as follows:
 The qualifications of voters by the old law, which it is proposed to amend by this bill. were:
 1. That he be a male citizen of the | United States. or.
 9 A male citizen of Mexico who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States under our trea- l ties with Mexico;
 g. Of the age of twenty years;
 {. Been a resident of the territory one year next preceding the election. and
 ,. Of the county, and G. Of the precinct in which he claims to vote thirty days, and '. Whose name is enrolled on the great register of the county, excepting idiots, insane persons. and persons who have been convicted of felony.
 To these qualifications above enum- erated this bill adds two others; that is, and I number them for convenience of reference:
 S. Who. not being prevented by | physical disability from so doing. is able to read the constitution of the United States in such manner as to show he is neither prompted nor recit- | ing from memory; and g. To write his name.
 As the absolute certain result of the operation of this bill, if it becomes a law, is to disfranchise some who have had ever since the organization of the territory. the right of suffrage, it must be necessarily presumed that that Is ! lne puTDOSt Ol lllt piOpbScu ltH lehH
 The whole spirit of American insti- tutions Is so sensitive of any limitation upon the right of franchise, that I think it Is well enough to give this proposition of disfranchisement care | ful consideration.
 I cannot recall that this proposition has been made a subject of discussion | in public; 1t was not discussed or even mentioned by the newspapers during the political campaign preceding the | last election, nor was it even most re- motely an issue in that campaign. The bill itself was introduced in your house and passed under sus- pension of the rules, without being printed, and without discussion. It was sent to the house of representatives and there passed in a like summary manner The utmost exuedition was observed in passing the bill. Of course I would not say that voter ought not to be able to read the constitution of the United States, or any oher composition, in the Eng | fish language-that is not, however, the question presented here. The | question is. Shall he be disfranchised | if he cannot read the constitution of | the United States in the English Ian guage in such a manner as to show | that he is neither being prompted nor reciting from memory?
 It was probably the mind of the | legislature to raise the standard of suffrage and to prevent in some de- gree, at least, the possibility of venal and ignorant vote.
 Whatever tends to do this is gener- ally to be approved. But it occurs to me that in this effort to raise the standard of the franchise and to some extent eliminate thHignorant vote, the doors are widely opened by this pro posed law to infinitely greater evil.
 In America the tendency has always been toward universal suffrage, not
 withstanding there is a sentiment, and a proper one, that it ought to be linn
 tied to the intelligent, to the honest, and to those who have a direct in
 terest in the orderly and just admin
 istration of public affairs
 The difficulty has always been to
 formulate and apply a just rule, by
 the honest and impartial application
 of which classification can be made
 between the intelligent and the honest 1 on the one hand and the ignorant and
 the venal on the other Dishonesty
 and venality are rot necessarily, nor
 probably even ordinarily, the accom-
 paniments of ignorance.
 It is not a safe rule to measure the honesty of voters by the degree of