Arizona republican., 1910-10-26

We, the people of the state of Ari- zona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties do ordain this eonstitu- tion:"
 This much of the constitution of the state of Arizona or. rather this preamble to the constitution, has been cinched and it has been no fools job to accomplish the cinching. It has required almost three weeks of prayerful deliberation and three quarters of an hour of learned de- bate to put it into its completed shape.
 It is not yet formally completed however, for it must run the gaunt- let of the committee on style, re- vision and computation to which 1t was referred yesterday after the con- vention had signified by an over wheIming majority that 1t was just the kind of a preamble that was needed. But it is certain that the committee wfile not dot an 'f' or cross 't." Thus the Arizona con- vention has accomplished as much in three weeks as the New Mexican convention has been able to turn out in four, demonstrating again the su- periority of the Arizonian over the New Mexican.
 This concrete result of the work of the convention in the last three weeks was attained yesterday after noon Chairman Crutchfield of the committee on preamble reported the proposition he had introduced, the first in the convention as follows:
 We, the people of Arizona, invok- ing the guidance of the Supreme Be ing, do ordain and establish this constitution in order to perpetuate liberty and justice in our state, and provide for the peace and welfare of posterity."
 There was a minority report rec ommending the one that was finally adopted and whose author is Judge Baker and who moved that proposi- ton No. be substituted for prop osition No. 1 in the motion to adopt. Then ensued the debate led by Judge Baker who objected to the Crutch- field preamble on account of its yer bosity. It was not to be, he said. a part of the constitution which itself would make provision for the per petuation of liberty and justice and would amply provide for the peace and welfare of posterity. What the people demanded, said Judge Baker in a constitution was a document, plain, simple, brief and easily under stood There was no better place to begin securing brevity and simplicity than in the preamble.
 MT Cunniff admitted the merit of brevity in Judge Bakers preamble. It was also, he said, smoother from a literary point of view and was free from jerkiness. At the same time, said Mir. Cunniff. he did not want to be understood to be reflecting upon the literary equipment of the author of proposition No. 1. He added that he did not believe that the preamble was the proper place to provide for the peace and welfare of posterity, seeing that that was going to be done at greater length later on.
 MT Goldwater remembered that another preamble had been intro- duced this very day by MT. Cooper and he desired that that be thrown into the pot so that they could be considered together The secretary stated that the Cooper preamble had been referred and it was further stated that 1t differed from Judge Bakers production only in the use of the words, Supreme Being" in- stead of Almighty God"
 Mir Crutchfield rose to the defense of the child of his brain, against the accusations of verbosity and literary uncouthness. It was briefer. he said, than the preambles of three-fourths of the constitutions that had ever been adopted and he believed that if 1t were carefully considered from the points of view of euphony and good English, it would be found to be flawless. He believed, moreover that it would be proper to refer in a preamble to the general purposes of the constitution itself.
 The motion was then put and Judge Bakers preamble displaced. that of MT. Crutchfield by a vote of B to 13 All this it should be stated took place in the committee of the whole where, it developed, under