Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-08-15
President Assigns as Reason His
Repugnance to Recall
Feature.
EXECUTIVE ACT REFERRED
TO TERRITORIES COMMITTEE
Senator Smith, of Michigan,
Moves Elimination of Recall
from Measure.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15.-President
Taft today sent to the House his spe-
cial message Vetoing the New Mexico
Arizona statehood bill. The Presidents
reason for exercising the executive
power of veto was based on his thor
ough disapproval of the recall of judges
clause in the Arizona constitution. The
fact that New Mexico's statehood was
bound up with that of Arizona meted
out TO her t same fate. and neither
territory can come into the Union at
this time unless friends of the joint
resolution in Congress can muster the
two-thrds vote necessary to pass the
resolution over the Presidents veto
This may be attempted
A resolution providing for the ad-
mission of New Mexico and Arizona,
in accordance with the wishes of Pres
was introduced by Senator Smith, of
on territories. The resolution makes
obligatory the elimina tion of the recall
feature of the Arizona constitution.
The message was read to the House
amid absolute silence. Then a storm
can side. The Democrats remained
quiet. The message was referred to
the territories committee
The motion for reference was made
by Representative Flood, of Virginia,
ehairraan of the committee on terri
tories. He declared that the veto
would receive immediate considera-
ton and would be reported back so
thaf ioh
victions about this great matter" The
bill was referred without roll call
IF l sign this joint resolution / do
not see how I can escape responsibility
for the judicial recall of the Arizona
constitution. The Joint resolution ad-
mits Arizona with the judicial recall,
but requires the submission of the
question. of its wisdors, to the voters.
ain ot,=ei words, the resolution app owes
the admission of Arizona with the
judicial recall, unless the voters them
selves repudiate it. Under the Arizona
constitution all elective officers, and
this includes county an6 State judges,
six months after their election, are
subject to the recall. 1t is initiated by
a petition signed by electors equal to
20 per cent. of the total number Of
votes cast for all the candidates for the
office at the previous general election.
Within five days after the petition i'd
filed the officer may resign. Whether
he does or not all election ensues in
which his name, II he does not resign.
Is placed on the ballot with that of ali
other candidates. The petitioners NAV
print on the official ballot 200 words.
showing their reasons for recalling the
0ff1caF and 10 fu
defense in the saine Place in 2n0 words.
If the incumbent receives the highest
number of the votes he continues in his
ONCE, II not, he is removed from office
and 10 succeeded by the candidate who
does receive the highest number.
Pernicious in Effect,
This provision OF the Arizona con-
stitutien, in its application to county
and State judges, seems to me so per-
-nicious in Its effect, so destructive of
Independence in the Judiciary, SO like
ly to subject the rights of the in
dividual to the possible tyranny of a
popular majority, and, therefore, to be
so injurious to the cause of free gov
ernment, that I must disapprove a
constitution containing 1t. 1 am not
now engaged In performing the Office
given me in the enabling act already
referred to, approved June 20, 1910.
which was that of approving the con-
stitutions ratified by the peoples of
the territories. 1t may be argued from
the text of that act that in giving
or Withholding the approval under the
act, my only duty is to examine the
proposed constitution, and if find
nothing in it inconsistent with the Fed
eral Constitution, the principles of the
Declaration of independence, or the en-
abling act, to register my approval.
But now l am discharging my constl-
tutional function in respect to the en-
actment of laws, and my discretion Is
equal to that of the houses of Con-
gress. l must therefore withhold my
approval from this resolution if in fact
Il do not approve it as a matter Of
sovernmentaI policy. OF course, a
mere difference of opinion as to the
wisdom of details in a State consti-
tuition ought not to lead me to set up
my opinion against that of the people
of the territory. 1t is to be their gor-
ernment, and while the power of Con-
gress TO withhold or grant statehood
i absolute. the people about to consti-
tute a State should generally know
better the kind of government and
constitution suited to their needs than
Congress or the executive. But when
such. constitution contains some
thing so destructive of free govern
ment as the judicial recall. it should
be disapproved
Gould there be a system more in
genously' devised to subject judges to
momentary gusts of popular passion
than this? We cannot be blind to the
fact that often an intelligent and re-
spectacle electorate may be so reused
upon an issue that 1t will visit with
condemnation the decision OF a just
Judge. though exactly in accord with
the law governing the case, merely
hncni1sa IL affects llnfa vora hlv their