Arizona republican., 1910-07-31
PHoENIx, ARIZONA, JULY s1. 1910
For Majority Rule.

AilZohd are dNdhe tO lne uulleS which confront them as citizens of Il state in the making is the evident interest manifested on all sides in the question of our constitution. It is not to be expected that in a think ing population, such as ours, there will be a sameness of opinion. h. deed. the very variety of opinion denotes a robust individuality in our citizenship which is promising of good in the future It is impossible for all citizens to agree in all details, but it is possible for all citizens to take a direct interest in public af- fairs, and this is a .corollary of sue cessful government
 We print today a carefully consid cred and dispassionate letter from MT w J. Galbraith, lawyer of Tue son Incidentally MT. Galbraith ar gues against the proposal to include prohibition among our constitutional provisions, but the text of his letter is a plea for an adherence to funda- mentals in the constitution and for the principle of government by the majority Whether or not one may favor constitutional prohibition, or the inclusion of any other plank con- corning which there is sharp differ ence of opinion among citizens. 1t must be admitted by every fair mind ed person that the principle of gov ernment by the majority cannot be assured if we cause to be imbedded provisions as provoke great popular divisions of opinion.
 Ae we have undertaken to point out heretofore, republican form of government in the United States IS founded on two basic principles: Rule by the majority, as expressed at the polls and in the legislature. modified by constitutional protection of the minority. The most essential features in the protection of the ml- nority relate, of course, to property and taxation and to personal liberty. If ia necessary that there shall be constitutional protection for every person against spoliation by the ma tority-we must guarantee to every man that his property shall not be taken without due process or law' po matter how much the majority may want his property for the public benefit; and we must guarantee 10 every person that he will be taxed on an equality with his fellowmen wa must guarantee to every person the familiar rights of absolute free- dom to believe what he pleases ana to freely express his opinion-ln short all the civil rights that are identified with the blessings of Am erican citizenship.
 Beyond this, it seems to us, it is dangerous to go in framing our con- stitution. If we do go beyond these Fundamental principles, we enter upon dangerous ground-the danger of attempting rule by the minority, backed by constitution, over a helpless majority. For, as our Tue son correspondent well says, while q majority today may advocate cer- tain things, and succeed in getting these things into the constitution, mo- body can say that these very things will not have a majority against them in the years to come.
 If. then, we believe in rule by the majority, is it not progressive in every sense to so frame our constitu rule in the future? The Republican is far from being obstinate. in the sense of opposing new ideas in legislation. But many of these ideas, while apparently of merit, may easily fail when practically applied to Ari- zona The safer course, from every standpoint. is to frame a constitution so simple and elastic that it win be constitutional" for the legislature at any time in the future to pass prac-. tically any law that the majority de- mands and which does not invade the inherent rights of the individual in the minority To be specific. it would be much safer to have our constitution provide that the legisla- ture may" enact laws to prohibit the sale and manufacture of in- toxicating liquor; may enact laws extending the suffrage to women; may. enact laws providing for direct legislation: may" enact laws. em- bodying the referendum principles; may enact laws providing for the recall from office of officials found derelict-and so on. And if. upon