Arizona republican., 1909-02-16

assistant secretary, and to the reduc- | tiOn of salaries wherever that could
 be done, to harass and annoy repub- lican office-hOlders. The reason as signed for this was that these off
 cers had been too active in the pre- ceding campaign. That the election
 had not gone in every respect to suit
 the party of which the majority of this assembly are members will easily account for this expressed attitude
 and to some degree excuse these threats.
 That the legislation creating the
 Ranger force and providing for its maintenance, the office of public ex-
 aminer, and the fixing of the com pensatiOn for that officer; the as-
 sistaEt secretary, and the fixing of the compensation for that officer, was democratic legislation, is, of course, a matter of common knowledge. It must be assumed that at the time | of it's enactment it was thought by the majority to have been designed for the public good. The first con demnatiOn, however. by the majority, as a party measure, was after the election of 1908, except, I believe, in
 Maricopa county, where, by a local democratic platform, the Ranger force was denounced to have become
 political instrument to be used by the appointing power.
 This is not a proper place nor a proper means to attempt any defense
 of republican office-holders from any charge of too zealOus political activ- lity than they had heretofore been.
 It was not the activity of the repub- | lican Office-holders, but the result of
 the election, that irritated the leaders of the democratic party and found l expression in the party newspapers in threats of retaliatory legislation. It would be wholly irrelevant to notice the attitude of the democratic newspapers if it were not so imme- ldiately followed by party action. At and just before the convention
 of this assembly the democratic cen l ltral committee, represented by it's principal officers, dictated or at least ! Iapproved the organization of a se-
 cret caucus of the democratic mem bers of this assembly and formulated or assisted in the formulation of cer- tain measures which should be deter mined by a majority of that caucus. Among these measures were the abo- | lition of the Ranger force, and of the office of public examiner, and others. As stated by one of the prominent members of it, the measures to be determined by the caucus were ''pO- litical, and not moral" Upon these measures every member of the demo- cratic majority pledged himself in
 writing to abide by the majority vote of the caucus.
 A majority of the caucus voted to abolish the Ranger force and the of | flee of public examiner. Every mem Der of the democratic majority of both houses of this assembly voted for this bill and for the bill to abol- | ish the office of public examiner, with the exception of two in your
 house who voted against this bill. Many members of both houses who pledged themselves to these caucus
 measures have repeatedly stated that they were not in favor of the abOli- ton of the Ranger force and that they were not in favor of the abOli- ton of the office of public examiner. One of those members puts himself in print on this subject. The follow ing letter, written by Hon. N. E.. Bailey. a member of the house of representatives, appeared in the col
 umns of a democratic newspaper of Cochise county under date of Febru- ary II, 1909:
 T have your letter of February f. I am, of course, grateful for the help you or any other democrat may have
 given me during the late election. You have a poor conception, however.
 of the obligation of a member of the legislature when you seek to cause
 him to vote one way or the other by
 threatening to give or withhold your support on future occasions. That
 part of your letter does not merit
 reply, but for your information, I
 may say that I never have been in
 favor of the repeal of the Rangers.
 When the bill to repeal was, however, made a party measure and. brought
 before the democratic caucus, it be-
 came the duty of every member of
 that caucus to vote as the majority