Arizona republican., 1910-02-12


 I had no opportunity to see the bill
 before leaving Washington as it was not then prepared. and hence l did not know what were its provisions until I received it by mail through the courtesy of MT. Cameron. l was in- formed while in Washington, however.
 that the provisions of the Cameron bill relating to the qualifications of voters at the election of delegates to the constitutional convention, and subsequent elections prior to our ad- mission as a state. would substantially be incorporated into the senate bill. Permit me. also. to suggest that. con- trary to an implication in your letter. it is not in my province as chief ex- ecutive of the territory to approve or | disapprove of any act of congress, and | my views with relation therto must. 1 therefore, be that of citizen of the territory interested like other citizens in its effect upon the people of the territory. With this preliminary state { ment l answer your inquiry by say ing with entire frankness. that as a citizen of Arizona, I approve of the 1 senate bill in shortening the time of residence needed to qualify a voter. from one year to six months. and further. approve of the repeal of the
 territorial act of March 10, 1909, er- roneousIy as I believe. referred to as the educational qualification law. Having thus stated with entire frank ness my attitude as to those provi- sions of the statehood bill. permit me to give my reasons for the same. The territorial act referred to is. in my judgment. to be condemned be- cause it is plainly partisan. unjustly discriminatory. and instead of tending to purify and elevate the electorate, is so drawn as to be a ready instru-
 ment of fraud in the hands of corrupt
 or unfair election officers and boards. ! That the act was partisan in origin and purpose is shown by its history. It was one of the caucus acts of the last legislature and although it was new legislation. far reaching in its consequence, it was nevertheless pass ed with little or no discussion or de- bate by d strict party vote. and when .etoed by the governor in a message
 of great force and ability was yet
 passed over the veto without discus sion and by the same vote. The tact that the act was partisan in origin and intent and may result to the ad- vantage of your party and to the dis advantage of mine is no sufficient reason why I. as broad minded. pa triotic citizen of the territory should condemn it. if it be good clean Iegis- latiou in other regards. On the other hand unless the act can be defended as a useful and needed amendment to our election laws, the fact that it was intended and does result to the advan-
 taSe of the democratic party. is no reason why republicans should with
 hold just criticism or refrain from ex- pressing their disapprovsl. Such { course would be cowardlv and un- worthy of courageous party leader ship.
 Does the act contain sufficient merit to withstand fair and just criticism aside from it's partisan character? It
 provides in effect as one of the quail fications of an elector that he shall be able to read orally from the con stitution of the United States in Eng fish so as to satisfy an election board that in thus reading he is neither prompted nor reciting from memory. and that he shall be able to write his name It is thus not so much an ed ucational as a racial qualification, for no one will seriously contend that the ability to read orally from the-eonsti- tuition in English is any Just educa- tion test. any more than the ability to read orally French or German is any such test. The ability to read and
 write is generally accepted as a test i, of intelligence. but the ability to read
 is not. I doubt if any advocate of this ! law would be so disingenuous, not to say dishonest. as to claim that the law | is either intended to or does in effect : disfranchise any considerable number 1 of voters other than those who speak | the Spanish language and whom we ordinarily call Mexicans. This being so. I contend that the act is unjustiy 1 discriminatory. racial in it's applica 1 ton and as such is to be condemned. Many good people may be misled as ! to the act and entertain mistaken belief based upon insufficient fnfor- { nation or prejudice that the demands : of good citizenship require the elini- nation of the Mexican vote. Granted 1 that we would be better off if the ven- | al. ignorant and purchaseable portion
 of that vote, as of our entire elector- J ate. could be eliminated. nevertheless. hold it to be unjust. and undemo-
 
 fCnnfinnaA PaOa EOfrr1