Arizona republican., 1910-07-22
PHoENIX, ARIZONA, JULY 22, 1910
For Arizona to Consider.

Phillips, which we printed yesterday, Is somewhat beside the point as to whether it would be wise to include the broad scheme of the initiative and referendum" in Arizona's consti- tuition. As everybody knows, we al- ready have the principle in our stat utes. A bonded indebtedness of the people cannot be incurred without a referendum, and when we become a state it would be well, We think, to prohibit the state from mourning indebtedness without the approval of the taxpayers expressed at a refer endum election.
 There is. indeed. not so much ob- vious objection to the referendum" principle as there is to the "initia- tive" to leave it to the people in- stead of the legislature to decide final ly on certain questions is both pro gressive" and sensible. But the think ing, well balanced people of Arizona are not at all inclined to embrace that emanation from bedlam, direct legislation"-and practical abolition of the legislature. It would be a sorry day for Arizona if it were made pos sible for any little coteries of cranks to initiate" legislation by. framing a bill and by a petition forcing the people at the polls to vote on it. And Tov the state when, by using the same machinery, it were made possible for special interests to enact laws. Lack of information concerning the merits of proposed laws, lack of interest in the special questions submitted, and lack of opportunity to make amend ments would so often result in their adoption at the polls that our statutes would soon be cumbered with mass of contradictory and foolish legisla- ton.
 Just now the agitators are trying to fOist the initiative and referendum" upon the state of Washington. Con cerning the merits of the proposition, Governor Hay of that state had this to say in a speech the other day:
 There are those who now advocate a return to the system that the race outgrew as it emerged from barbar- ism; that is, a return to the folkmoOt in its pristine simplicity. They would have us, who are in the midst of highly organized civilization, attempt to govern ourselves with a system that met the needs of a simple, pas toral and barbaric age. They profess to believe, and doubtless many of them do believe, that we, who often refuse or fail to drop absorbing vo- cations and private interests long enough to call a halt to those few representatives who have gone wrong, could and would give the practical and painstaking consideration neces- sary to secure practical and efficient government by direct legislation.
 To me the proposition would ap- pear ridiculous were it not so dan gerous in its portent The. remedy for whatever evils may have crept into this form of government could be applied without changing the form or wrecking the fabric created by the DdlflOlS Ol lilS IGNOlhAiOh anu down to us by our forefathers.
 Commenting upon Governor Hays remarks. the Portland Oregonian says:
 This means that Governor Hay op- poses the oregon system" in his state He is not alone in his oppo- sition The example of Oregon, sup planting parliamentary lawmaking with direct legislation, is not a pleas ant one. It was not intended by the people of oregon that the direct method of making laws should take precedence over the other and burden voters with the absurd task that con- fronts electors of the state in the next election. Had it been foreseen several years ago, when the initiative and referendum was adopted, that the new system would lead to present ex- cesses its adoption would have been rejected, just as now its adoption is resisted in the state of Washington.
 Under the initiative and referendum next November, voters of oregon will attempt lawmaking functions of the legislature by direct voting on g measures. Seven of these measures come from the legislature for referen- dunn. Twenty-Five others come, in nearly every case, from innovators. agitators, or self-seeking groups of citizens. None of the twenty-five ini- tiative bills has been framed by a representative body of citizens, with regard to substantial justice for inter- ests involved or to the adjustment of conflicting needs of the body polite
 Of the seven referendum bills, four are constitutional amendments and three are statutory enactments. Of the twenty-five initiative bills. seven are constitutional amendments and