Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1917-02-26
An Extra Session?

Ordinarily the explanation" by member of his
any question is matter of no interest to any
himself He usually seems to think that his
of imperishable record and he desires
that posterity may know why he did thus and 1t
NAV be that the vote is proprety of digging
artssian well or the establishment of a game preserve
question of the relief of small creditor
of the state Still the member desires to explain his
vote that he may be mistudged in the centuries
to come.
We cannot recall that were ever before in
erested the motives of any member. were edited
by his explanation of his But think it is due
to the members of the house themselves to explain
why they voted against the general appropriation bill
on Saturday. The public is really interested in that
and public it's suspicious and is express
ing them These suspicious not complimentary to
the members voting in the negative. They may be
removed by reasonable explanation.
OF the bill it may be said that 1t is not quite
satisfactory any member Of the house but it was
generally agreed that was more nearly satisfactory
all the members than any other that could be de-
vsed; in fact it regarded absolutely certain
that other could be devised within the regular
-ionA A compromise appeared to have been reached
the bin it went to the enrolling and engrossing
committee. 1t there by vote which left
reasonable doubt of the intention of the house to
send the senate
Why then has the minority held up? Is it be-
eved that if this obstinacy persisted in there will
be session which would give promise OF
an agreement? Is it that it is impossible for the
legislative business of Arizona to be transacted in
single session? Is Arizona citizenship dense.
ebtuse that cannot select from it men and women
capable Of averting the and disgrace Of extra
sessions? We have far since admission to state
hood proved to the world by our legislatures that
have citizenship of business capacity and
Intelligence. We thought the present legislature
going redeem reputation.
why do the members Of the minority want an
session? Is it for the 81 per diem? Two years
ago and four years ago members, many but
enough Of them palpably and shamelessly jockeyed
produce series of extra sessions II that is what
is wanted have not the slightest doubt that
public spirited citizens all parts of IL
they could avert the session in other way. would
join in the creation of fund to which such mem
bers prolong their per diems could apply
for salaries for another day sessionjus the
actual session may be avoided.
1t is to be supposed that all voted against
the appropriation bill we're inspired by unworthy
motives There features OF the bill which some
present insuperable obstacles to their endorse
ment of it. Some such objections voiced at
various stages Of the bills progress and all such
objections should have been heard the vote to send
the measure to the committee enrolled and
crossed bill But those who voted send the bill
to the committee will have hard time explaining
their against the bill on its third reading.
We speaking of a suspicion and of
established fact There is another suspicion. 1t is
observed that the eleven members voted against
the appropriation bill belong to what is recognized
the Hunt element in the house. There are other
u1pm rho IN he nd
would no doubt support him in any issue that would
arise between him and another but who regard
the business of the Of greater importance than
the wellbeng the ambitions Of the former
But there are members of the Hunt cabal who have
been believed from the beginning to be working to pre-
vent the transaction Of all necessary business in order
that another session will be necessary Only the failure
of the appropriation bill would make such a session
necessary They hope that result of the proceed
ings in superior court se governor will re-
seated and will occupy the governors chair again.
least until the be reviewed by the supreme
court An session in circumstances would
be about the worst thing that could happen. The
former governor would have against him a majority
in each house and would have a condition
than that Of two years ago.
The majority should permit an excuse for an
extra session. There should be general appropria-
tion bill with without emergency clause II the
minority wants to assume the responsibility for the
elimination Of that clause let it be allowed so.
The bill without the emergency clause would be-
come operative in ninety days unless the referendum
were invoked and it could be conceived that any
considerable number Of persons could be brought
together to invoke it. Our state institutions and
offices might be subjected some slight incon-
venience but they could get along very we'll for
ninety days. Anything steer away from an extra
session