Arizona republican., 1911-02-18
PHOENIX. ARIZONA, FEB. IS, 1s1
Arizona and States Rights"

The Providence Journal, although it
is the leading newspaper of Senator
Aldrich's state, is both independent
and insurgent Like nearly every
other great paper in the country, the
Journal expresses strong disapproval
of Arizonas constitution. but confines
its objections to the recall 1t states
in general terms the objections which
it finds to the recall. especially as
applied to the judiciary:
THE recall is certainly a dubious
proposition. Intended to rid the COM
munity of an officer who has proved
unfaithful to his trust, it opens the
way to evils as serious as those il
proposes to cure. 1t subjects a public
servant to continual apprehension lest
his work shall be adjudged unsatis-
factory; it puts cowardice in the place
of self-reliance; it injects politics into
the public business. 1t is, in short, a
device that does not commend itself
to thoughtful minds Notwithstanding
its occasionally demonstrated useful
ness.
at was unfortunate that the franz
ers of the Arizona constitution were
not better advised than to incorporate
the recall into their final draft. AS
the constitution now stands, II pro-
vides that One-fOurth of the number
of voters in a district may petition
for the displacement of judge; IN
which case, if he does not promptly
resign, a special election shall be
held at which he must receive
plurality of the votes in order TO re
tain his seat The dangers of this
Arrangement will be more fully appre-
ciated when it is remembered that at
special elections the total vote is
likely to be small; in short, slight
percentage of the community might
drive from office judge who had
on thoroughly reasonable grounds Of
Tended it. The recall. as adopted by
the Phoenix convention, applies to all
elective officers, but criticism of II
has been confined almost entirely TO
its menace of the judiciary system"
The Journal doubts. however,
whether it is within the rightful
province of Washington to refuse adj
mission on this ground. 1t says:
ION the other hand, has congress the
right to say whether the state of Ari-
iona shall or shall not put the recall
into it's fundamental law? The federal
body stipulated that Arizona and New
Mexico should both submit their work
to it before entering the union; but
is there any substantial force behind
this unusual requirement? The Uni
ted States constitution merely author
ICES the federal government to pre-
serve a republican form of govern
ment in each of the several states, and
nobody charges that the recall is hos
tile to such a form. 1t is merely the
logical deduction from the system OF
judicial election for limited term
that prevails in many of the states, in
distinction to that of appointment Tor
life.
..The question goes far beyond the
Immediate Arizona issue. In Oklaho-
ma a similar dispute has been aroused
nv the failure of the state to obey the
Injunction of the congressional enabl-
ing act and retain the capital at
Guthrie How can congress compel
this sovereign commonwealth to hold
it's legislative sessions at a small ana
possibly inconvenient town when II de-
sires to establish the seat of govern
ment at the principal center of popu-
lation? The people of Utah prom
ised. when they were admitted to the
union, to prohibit polygamy forever
but il has been laid down as a funda-
mental proposition in this Arizona
discussion that a state has the right
after it is safely in the union, to al
ter its constitution as it sees fit
Does this imply that Utah. where the
Mormons are still dominant, could
break its promise to the nation and
remove the safeguards against plural
marriage that it erected in order to
become a state?"