Arizona republican., 1912-06-18

senate may defeat a measure passed py majority in the house? Such q system simply means minority rule Whlch IS contrary to the fundamental prlnclples of democracy. Why di
 Vlde the representatives of the peo- Die into two houses. If we need two houses now, why did we not need them in the constitutional convention? In state like our own where the people are ultimate and highest DOW CT in the state, having the right to legislate in their own hands why are two houses necessary? The people themselves may check unwise legis- lation. We submit to the reader whether the argument that the sen ate Is necessary "check" upon the house is well founded.
 Another argument set up against the abolition of the senate is this: It is departure from long estab- lished rules. Is that a good argu- ment? Let us weigh it. In the study of moral dynamics, we learn that when the reason for the exist ence of an institution ceases then the institution itself should cease to ex- ist Or in other words, every in- stitutiOn, every creed, every belief must have the same justifiable req sons for it's existence now that it had to begin with. The fact that a thing has always existed is no req son why it should continue to exist. The history of the world clearly shows that disobedience to old established rules is the road to pro- gross. Had it not been for disobedi- ence to established rules, by our fore fathers, we would still be subject to Great Britain. Shall we wait for the older state to establish the initiative and referendum and for them to then abolish their useless state senate be- fore we take action in the matter, or shall we stand by the tranquil col umns of reason and act upon the evidence that is before our eyes, which is clear and convincing and leads us to but one conclusion, or shall we refuse to act and thereby suffer on, bearing an extra and use less burden because other states do? Should not the state senate of Ari- zona having Outlived it's usefulness, cease to exist?
 Let us now consider a few points in favor of the abolition of the state senate CD The abolition of the sen- ate would do away with great eX- pense to the state. Some thousands of dollars could be saved to the tax payers of the state each year, to say nothing of the waste of time and energy to the respective members. Why not abolish the senate and then reduce the number in the house to say three or five men, pay them so much a year, making their term ot office from ten to fifteen years, sub- feet always to the recall, then require them to do nothing else but to study governmental problems, the science of national life, and the art of liv- ing? Let them be in session the en- tire year to work out solutions to social industrial and economic prob lens in general Then whenever as many as a given number of laws have been formulated by them, have them submitted to the people This would save the state great expense, and in a few years would give the state of Arizona a fund with which to reclaim her desert lands, and pro mote her various industries. There fore. the abolition of the senate would not only decrease the expense of the state but would leave a fund suffi- cfent to promote her general welfare.
 (2) The abolition of the senate would be conducive to a purer demo- cracy. It would bring laWmaking closer to the people. By submitting all laws to the people, except such as are regular and have to be enact
 pfp
 the people would have the responsi- bility of laWmaking placed upon thelr own shoulders In so doing debating societies, schools of economics ana social science would spring up. The people would thus become thinkers and philosophers, would know the laws of their state something many of them know little of under our pres ent system. They would become more law abiding because they would feel that they themselves were re- sponsible for the laws which govern ed them. They would thus become educated in those things which make for more and better life amongst men. It would greatly increase the average intelligence and uplift the morals of our people. Therefore, the senate should be abolished in order to bring about a purer democracy. (39 The senate should be abolish ed in order to do away with minority rule which is contrary to all true democratic principles.
 (4) The abolition of the senate would promote honesty of purpose and sincerity among the members of the house Each member would be more prone to stand upon his own convictions, and convictions only, be- cause he could not hope that law which he did not favor would be de- feated in the other house. The result would be conducive to the develop ment of strength of character ana honesty of purpose. Therefore, the senate should be abolished in order to purify the legislative body.
 (5) The abolition of the senate would be conducive to the making of fewer laws. Nearly all of us are agreed that we have too many laws. For instance, if the state should | convert into a finished product the timber now on her public lands, and put that lumber on the market Tn competition with the lumber trust, 1nHx