Arizona republican., 1915-04-13

l is due to a coordinate branch of the government, especially so when the | legislative act has been submitted to people"
 After reciting the text of the law in question. tine decision continues:
 Tt ig a cardinal principle of con- stitutional construction to give. to a constitution and it's provisions the meaning, if possible of ascertainment intended by it's framers. It is per version to give 1t any other mean ing. If the language used is plain and easily understood, it should he looked to without eXtrinsic aid for the meaning intended. In this in stance. the qualifying words used in section ,. article of the consti tuition may refer to and modify the power as reasonably as they may be said to refer to and qualify tl.e pardon Did the men who wrote the constitution intend that the gov ernor of this state should have unli nited and unrestricted power to is sue pardons? It is a matter of com
 
 just prior to the converting of the constitutional convention consider able feeling and criticism were in dulged in by the people of the ter rit0ry, over what was generally thought to be an abuse of the par donins power and no one knew it better than the members of the con vcntion. The language used in our constitution defining the pardoning power is not to be found in any other constitution in any other state of the union. and the difference is significant. It is not unreasonable to assume that the convention en- dcavored to so word section of article so as to prevent recur renee of an indiscriminate use of the pardoning power. There is a manifest lack of intention to follow the language of the organic laws of the territory"
 After comparing the constitutional provision with the territorial provi- sion and the constitution of Michi- gan. which is similarly worded but which provides that the governor may grant reprieves, communications and pardons Upon such con- dtions and with such restrictions proper subject to regulations pro- vided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons;" the court cites a decision upholding a similar law in that state, and announces that if the Arizona provision was the same that the question would be easily determined. After referring to other cases relied upon by the appellant the court says:
 "A reference to the journals of the third session of the legislature, 16, 1913. the senate. over the gover- nors veto, passed house bill No. 1, of which the section creating the board of pardons and paroles was q rart, with one dissenting vote In'I the senate were members voting for the measure who had distinguished themselves as leaders of the Consti- tutional Convention. In the house the measure was approved notWith- SthHuiDS thc NCtO Oy NOlc LII "a in the affirmative and six in the ne- gatiye. one of those voting in the af- firmative and one voting in the mega tive having been members of the constitutional conention.
 cunniff's Work Mentioned
 "The president of the senate. lately deceased. perhaps contributed more than any single individual in the making of the constitution, as we'll also the laws enacted at the first session of the legislature. and his well known probity, ability and fi- delty to the fundamental law forbid the thought that he would vote for any legislative act inimical to that sacred instrument. He and those other members of the convention 1 that wrote the constitution. and later as law makers voted for the creation of the board of pardons and paroles, ! must have endeavored only to carry out the intention of the conention as they wrote 1t into the constitu- tion'
 l IG cases of doubt or ambiguity,