Arizona republican., 1910-11-05

the states by section of article oi
 the constitution of the United State:
 and required by the express provisions
 of the enabling act.
 The primary meaning of the word
 democracy" is the Athenian form oi
 government where the governing pow
 CT Is directly exercised by the assem-
 bled people. It has, however, lately
 come to mean a government in which
 the whole governing power is vested
 in the people, whether exercised by them directly or through representa- tives elected by them.
 Webster's definition of republic" is
 "a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the
 people, and is exercised by representa-
 tives elected by them" This definition
 has been quoted with approval by the
 supreme court of the United States in Downes vs Bidwell, 1S2 U. S. 279.
 The men who framed our constitu-
 ton were largely men possessed of a
 broad knowledge of existing form of government and just as well aware of
 the distinction between a republic and
 democracy as between either of those
 and a monarchial form of government.
 Had they desired a government in
 which the people of the states might
 either exercise governmental powers
 directly or through representatives
 elected by them at their option, they would unquestionably have guaranteed
 to the states a democratic form of gov
 ernment Presumably they believed a
 representative form of government
 preferable under existing and, so far
 as they could foresee, future condi- | tions, and used the word republican"
 instead of democratic" advisedly.
 The supreme court of the United
 States has said in re-Duncan, 139 U. s.,
 4S1:
 1 By the constitution, a republican form of government Is guaranteed to every state in the Union, and the dis tinguishing feature of that form Is the | right of the people to choose their own
 officers for governmental administra- ton, and pass their own laws In virtue of the legislative power rcposed in rep resentative bodies, whose legitimate acts may be said to be those of the people themselves"
 l Happersett, 21 Wallace. 175, that court said:
 Tt is true that the United States guarantees to every state a republican form of government. It is also true | that no state can pass a bill of attain
 der, and that no person can be de- prived of life, liberty, or property with l out due process of law. All these sev- eral provisions of the constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument, and in | the light of the surrounding circum- stances.
 The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular government Is designated as republi- can, neither is the exact form to be | guaranteed, in any manner especially | designated. Here, as in other parts of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was l intended.
 "The guaranty necessarily Implies a duty on the part of the states them selves to provide such Q government. All the states had governments when the constitution was adopted. In all, the | through their representatives elected in the manner specially provided. These governments the constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and 1t is, therefore, to be presumed that they were such as 1t | was the duty of the states to provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form. with in the meaning of that term as em- | ployed in the constitution"
 The constitutions of the states re- | ferred to by the court made no prOvi- sion for government by the people di- rectly, but were essentially representa- tive and republican in form.
 It may be said that these expressions of the court are dicta. but that court even by way of illustration or as dic- tum rarely expresses itself save after careful consideration of its expressions. The question of the constltutionality of the initiative and referendum is now pending in that court in the case of State vs. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co, 99 Pacific, 421, on ap- peal from the supreme court of oregon, and I am advised Is No. 197 upon the calendar of the court and cannot by any possibility be heard before next spring, and in all probability will not be reached for hearing before next fall, and the decision of the court can scarcely be expected in Its present somewhat dlsorganized condition be- fore the following spring.
 The enabling act in express terms re- quires that our constitution shall be republican in form, and it would be IT. diclflous to assume that the president, himself a great constitutional lawyer, woIhd approve a constitution contain ing these debatable measures While case involving the constitutionality or such provisions is pending in the su- preme court of the United States, and we must look for delay in the presi- dents approval of such constitution until at least a year from next spring, and in event the decision is announced after the adjournment of congress, then the required joint approval of the president and congress will be de- layed for upwards of two years If that decision be adverse, disapproval will follow as a matter of course. That it will be adverse, I believe to have. been clearly foreshadowed by the existing expressions of the court. In such event | the people will hear no excuse from those who have followed their instruc-