Bisbee daily review., 1910-09-06

vanced With such an arrangement the writer believes that the presi- dent and congress will not reject a constitution incorporating those prin- ciples. Frequently there are quoted President Taft's untterances at Phoe- nix and Albuquerque with regard to the kind of constitution he hoped to see adopted in either Arizona or New Mexico. In neither of these speeches did he arraign the three principles cited. At another time he made a speech at Oklahoma City. Had Mir. Taft opposed those princi- ples as unfit to inject into state con stitutions he would have uttered his objections in his speech in Ok lahoma City when he set out to tackle the proposed constitution of that state. An examination of that speech however. shows that it is not the initiative and referendum that he fnyeighs against or that prompted him to consider the document a zoo logical garden of cranks.' His speech plainly condemned the intervention of a jury In inJunctions: he com mented upon the heavy expense the state would be subjected to in the unnecessary number of oflices ere ated by the constitution: he emu merated provisions that are clearly matters of statutory law: he ap- proved the restrictions concerning corporations. but thought much of that would be better in the statutes; he referred to the initiative and ref erendum clauses as going much fur ther than those of any other states and he expressed his fear that be- cause of confusing technicalities and the lack of proper restrictions the matter would prove doubtful in its results. It should be noted that he did not assail the principle nor deny that the right of the people to rescind the action of their representatives should be safeguarded in the constitution. nor that the same was compatible with the automatic provision in all our state constitutions that ultimate sovereignty resides in the people.
 Tn effect. he clearly approved the principle. and commended it when properly restricted. It is an error to assume that principle is fallacious on the ground that it is enunciated in the Oklahoma constitution. It Is mistake to enlist Taft in the fight against this popular movement and to represent that he will veto our constitution if the initiative and referendum are contained in 1t. It is a clear case of misrepresentation.
 Further than this, it is doubtful If President Taft in his eminent sense of consistency would veto a con sutution which contains provisions to which he is opposed. Note his atti- tude in OS' City. Taft was then in Roosevelt's cabinet:
 ''I disc,aim any authority to speak on the subject of the validity or in validity Of the constitution for the reason that the function that the president would perform in deciding to approve it or not is judicial one. as 1t is his part to judge wheth- CT the proposed constitutions conforms to the enabling act and the eonsti- tuition of the United States.
 "Tt is not the function Of the president to reject the constitution merely because he does not approve its wisdom and does not like its provisions from a political point of view. My attitude is that of a citi- zen putting himself in the place of a citizen of Oklahoma and advising the republicans of Oklahoma in respect or otherwise. of adopting the constitution whose rejection is a great deal easier than to amend it so as to eliminate its defects
 The Oasis holds that there is no call for rodomontade in discussing what provisions should be incorpor- ated in the proposed constitution, or what should not be mentioned lest it be rejected at Washington. Let the discussion be upon high plane Let the people of Arizona by taking thought and consultation determine what they need in their fundamental law, and put it in. The sound sense and reason of the people and their delegated representatives in the con- vention will dictate surely what will be good for the state. and will also pass congress"