MASTER'S THESIS M-655
W A L K E R , Walter Wood. ARIZONA'S STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION O F 1891.
The American University, M.A., 1964 History, modern
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COPYRIGHT BY
WALTER WOOD WALKER
1965 ARIZONA'S STRIJ&GLB FOR STATEHOOD WITH EMPHASIS
ON ^ PROPOSED CONSTITUTION OF 1891
by Walter Wood Walker
Submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Art a and Sciences
of the American University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Arts
Signatures of Committee
Chairman
Member_
O Member Dean of the College
Date Date 7 ^ 1965-64 The American University
Washington, D. C. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ®EP241964 IMSHINSTOn , D. C
^ 8 TABLE OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. BACKGROUND OP ARIZONA'S DRIVE FOR STATEHOOD . 4
Arizona and New Mexico: 1848-1863 4
Early Efforts at Statehood ...... 14
Background of the Constitutional
Convention of 1 8 9 1 ...... 18
Background of the Delegates to
the Convention ...... 21
III. THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION OF 1 8 9 1 ...... 40
IV. ARIZONA'S DRIVE FOR STATEHOOD ...... 74
The First Bid for Statehood ...... 74
The Free Silver C rusade ...... 77
Arizona's Second Bid for Statehood ...... 81
Arizona's Successful Drive for Statehood . . 84
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 100 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Arizona Constitution of 1891 was formulated and written as a climax to nearly three de cades of territorial rule. It has not received adequate historical recognition, either nationally or locally.
Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to explore the historical background and course of development of this constitution, and to demonstrate the national and local historical importance of this first major effort by the people of Arizona Territory to achieve statehood.
The Con*^ citution of 1891 was long neglected in the standard historical studies of Arizona. ^ However, since it was the first serious effort for home rule, it deserves a thorou^ historical study as an integral part of Arizona's fervant desire to become a member of the
Union.
George H. Kelley, Legislative History of Arizonat 1864-1912 (Phoenix, Arizona* Manufacturing Stationers, 1926), pp. 154-55; Edward A. Peplow, Jr., History of ^Izona (New York* Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1958), II, p. 9; Prank 0. Lockwood, Pioneer Days In Arizona* Proa the Spanish Occupation to Statehood Tïïew York* The MacMillan Company, 1932), pp. 368-69; James H. McClintock, Arizona* The Youngest State (Chicago* The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company^ 1916), II, pp. 361-362. 2
The drive for statehood in 1891 and the resulting constitution claimed a certain amount of importance in the national spotlight. This was a political act and came at a time when the United States government was dominated by the Republican Party. Arizona Territory, on the other hand, was predominately Democratic. The late nineteenth century was the period when the great silver crusade was at its peak. Arizona was favorably disposed to free sil ver which was an important factor in the history of the proposed Constitution of 1891* Finally, the relationship between the constitution and the repeal of the Sherman
Silver Purchase Act in 1893 clearly shows the political opinion of the time within the Congress of the United
States on the silver issue.
Besides Chapters 1 and 5 of this thesis, which are devoted to introductory remarks and the summary, there are three major chapters. Chapter 2 deals with the historical background of the proposed Constitution of 1891* This in cludes a survey of Arizona’s efforts to achieve territorial status, her final success, and the early movements toward statehood. Part 3 of this chapter covers the constitution al convention and a discussion of the delegates.
Chapter 3 is an article by article development of the constitution. This chapter relies heavily upon news papers as well as other sources. Chapter 4 traces the 3 history of Arizona Territory's drive for statehood under
the Proposed Constitution of 1891. In addition, the national political scene is discussed and important his torical conclusions are arrived at in relation to this fiÿst major effort of the people of Arizona Territory to achieve the status of statehood.
Chapter IV is an historical account of the final effort by the people to bring Arizona into the Union. This covers the present constitution of the state which was written in
1910; its progressive qualities; and the final acceptance by
Congress and President William Howard Taft. CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND OP ARIZONA'S DRIVE POR STATEHOOD
I. ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO» 1848-1863
The story of the struggle for Arizona statehood is set against an historical background which began in 1848.
When the treaty of Guadalupe-Hildalgo was ratified by the
United States Senate on May 30 of that year. New Mexico became a part of the public domain of the United States.
The southern boundary was the Rio Grande» the Upper Gila, and a line uniting these rivers just above the present position of El Paso, Texas.^
On August 15, 1850, the United States Senate passed a bill providing a territorial government for New Mexico.
The House of Representatives joined this bill with the
Texas boundary bill, which the Senate had previously passed, and sent the combined bill to the Senate for its approval on September 9» 1850. President Millard Pillmore signed 2 the bill into law on the same day.
By the Texas and New Mexico Act, the boundaries of the latter territory included Arizona, as well as parts of
, Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico I 1530-1888. Volume XVLI of The Works. 39 volumes (San Prancisoo* The History Company, 1889), p. 442.
^Ibid., pp. 457-58. 5 Colorado and Nevada. The eastern boundary of New Mexico ran to the thirty-eighth parallel, which was followed west to the Continental divide at the headwaters of the Rio
Grande, thence back to the thirty-seventh parallel. That line was then followed straight west until it met Cali fornia's eastern boundary. At this time the Gila River was
New Mexico's southern boundary line as well as that which % separated the United States territory from Mexico.^
From 1850 until 1863 Arizona was a part of the New
Mexico Territory. Until 1854 county division of the Ari zona area consisted of the five or six New Mexican counties whose western boundaries extended to the California line.
Since Arizona had few permanent settlements, there existed the bhre semblance of county jurisdiction. The Gadsden
Purchase of 1854 added the area between the Gila River and the present Mexican border to New Mexico Territory and, by an act of that legislature in January, 1855, it was at tached to Dona Ana County, a part of which it remained until 1863. In records of the time, however, the only in dication of county rule is the occasional sending of a criminal to Mesilla for trial. There were justices of the peace at Tucson and so it can be safely assumed that there
^Rufus Kay Wyllys, Arizona» The History of a Frontier State, first edition (!Phoenix, Arizona» Hobson & Herr, 1950), p. 106. 6 were others throughout the county. The lack of adequate county jurisdiction and the fact that this portion of the
New Mexico Territory was far removed from the seat of gov ernment in Santa Pe, caused a great deal of complaint.
This dissatisfaction resulted in the circulation and sign ing of petitions asking for a separate territorial govern ment for that portion of the territory which is now Arizona.^
A convention was held at Tucson on August 29» 1856 which resolved to send a memorial to Congress urging the organization of the separate territory of Arizona. The memorial was signed by some two hundred and sixty names, and Nathan P. Cook was elected as the delegate to Congress.
Cook was not admitted to a seat in that body, but his mis-
Sion was brought before it in January, 1857.
Because of the limited population, the House Com mittee on Territories reported against a territorial or ganization for Arizona at that time. It did, however, recognize the unfortunate condition of the people in the lack of adequate government. Accordingly, it recommended a bill to organize a judicial district south of the Gila; to appoint a surveyor-general; to provide for representa tion at Santa Fe; and to regulate land claims and mining
^Bancroft, History of Arizona, pp. 503-4.
Wyllys, Arizona: The History of a Frontier State, p. 135. 7 titles. Such a bill was passed by the Senate in February,
1856, but was never acted upon by the House. President
James Buchannon added a slight note of encouragement when he recommended a territorial government for Arizona in his message to Congress in 1857.^
On December 17, 1857 Senator William M. Gwin of
California introduced a bill which would provide for the organization of a territorial government within the Gadsden
Purchase. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Territories, and while there, the New Mexico territorial legislature passed resolutions in favor of the measure.
Added to the resolutions were recommendations for a north and south boundary line on the 109th meridian and a re quest that all New Mexican Indians be removed to Northern
Arizona. In spite of New Mexico’s approval, Gwin’s bill 7 did not pass the Senate.
During the year 1857 several favorable petitions were received from^.different parts of the Union which encouraged the people of Tucson to hold an election for a delegate to Congress. Sylvester Mowry was elected
^Bancroft, History of Arizona, pp. 504-5.
"^Ibid., p. 505; B. Sacks, "The Creation of the Territory of Arizona," Arizona and the West, 7 (Spring, 1963), p. 46. 8 an-d accordingly went to Washington but was not admitted to a seat. In the following years Mowry was re-elected as
Arizona’s delegate and continued his efforts with much zeal and no success. Other bills of a similar nature were introduced and defeated. The people of Arizona held other meetings and sent more memorials to which little attention was paid.
As a rule, there was no debate on these bills so the ground of opposition is not very clearly indicated.
It was doubtless founded on the old sectional quarrel growing out of the slavery question. The exact force of the slavery issue in Arizona, however, is not very apparent. The proper time to raise that issue would seem to have been in 1854 when the Gadsden Purchase was attached to the Territory of New Mexico. The Gadsden
Purchase was a Southern measure, and its Northern op ponents felt that the proposed territorial organization must be, in some way, a scheme for Southern aggrandizement.
Opposition was also created because it was thought that the population— represented as from 8,000 to 10,000— and the area’s need of a government was exaggerated. Furthermore, it was feared that the whole project was being agitated
^Bancroft, History of Arizona, pp. 505-6. 9 for the benefit of a few office-seeking speculators in mines or lands. The measure could not command the full
support of the Democratic Party, and the North was not
strong enough to organize the territory with any kind of
a Wilmot Proviso.^
The people living in the Gadsden Purchase area were
especially anxious to establish their own civil government.
For this purpose, they held a meeting in Tucson on April
2-5, 1860.^^ A provisional constitution was drafted to re
main in force until Congress organized a territorial govern,
ment. The "Territory of Arizona " was to comprise all of
New Mexico south of 53® 40' north latitude and was divided
by north and south lines into four counties to be known as 11 Dona Ana, Mesilla, Ewell and Castle Dome.
Lewis S. Owings, a physician and later the mayor of
Denison, Texas, was elected governor and authorized to
appoint a roster of officials. Judicial districts were to
be created, a bicameral legislature was to be elected,
provision was made for organizing a militia with a full
set of officers, and the election of county officials was to
be held in May. Ignacio Orrantia, a merchemt of Mesilla,
^Bancroft, History of Arizona, p. 506.
^^Edward A. Peplow, History of Arizona (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1958), I, p. 361.
Sacks, "The Creation of the Territory of Arizona," p. 56. 10 was chosen lieutenant-governor with James A. Lucas as sec retary, Granville H. Oury as chief justice, Mark Aldrich of Tucson as treasurer, Samuel G. Bean as marshal, Palatine
Robinson as adjutant general, and William C. Wordsworth, a resident of the Sonoita Valley as major-general of the militia. The hope was expressed that Mowry would continue 12 to serve as delegate to Congress. Since the leaders of the provisional government were Southern sympathizers, the provisional Territory of Arizona was the precursor of the 13 Confederate Territory of Arizona.
During the year 1860 no positive results came from the constitutional convention other than the election and appointment of officials. Edward McGowan, district judge under the new government, was elected delegate to Congress \ 14. to succeed Sylvester Mowry. The New Mexican legislature passed new resolutions in favor of a division and, by an act of Febiniary 1, 1860 created a new county called Ari zona from the western portion of Dona Ana County with
Tucson as the county seat. No attention was paid to this bill, and it was repealed two years later. The year ended
T^ibid.
^^Ibid.. p. 58.
^^Bancroft, History of Arizona, pp. 507-8. The first book published in Arizona is believed to be that which contains the records of the convention, the schedule, constitution, and governor's inaugural address. Ibid. 11 on a negative note when another bill to organize the
Territory of Arizona was introduced into Congress and 13 met the same fate as bills of previous years.
With the outbreak of the American Civil War, public sentiment throughout Southern Arizona was strong ly pro-Confederate. During the summer of 1861, sixty- eight American voters convened in Tucson and declared'the
Territory of Arizona a part of the Confederacy. In August
Granville H. Oury was elected Arizona's delegate to the 16 Confederate congress.
In July, 1861 Confederate forces reached Mesilla,
New Mexico where Lieutenant- Colonel John R. Baylor issued a proclamation organizing the Territory of Arizona. It consisted of all of New Mexico south of the thirty-fourth parallel and Mesilla was named the capital. Baylor named himself governor and his will was enforced by his regiment 17 of Texas Mounted Rifles.
On January 18, 1862 the Confederate congress adopted an enabling Act for the new Territory of Arizona. On Feb ruary 14, 1862 President Jefferson Davis issued the formal proclamation attaching the territory to the Confederate states. Slavery was protected in the new territory and
""^Ibid.
^^Peplow, History of Arizona. II, p. 372.
^^McClintock, Arizona» The Youngest State, p. 160. 12
Granville H. Oury was accepted as the official delegate 18 to the Gonf6derate congress.
Early in 1862 a force of some two hundred Texans under Captain Sherod Hunter marched westward from Mesilla 1Q and occupied Tucson on February 27, 1862. ^ Except for
holding Tucson, driving out Union sympathizers, confis«*
eating mines belonging to Northerners, and fighting the
Apaches, Hunter's operations in Tucson were not really
known. After a clash between Union and Confederate forces
at Picacho Pass on April 15, 1862, Captain Hunter retreated
to the Rio Grande. On May 20, 1862, lieutenant Colonel
Joseph R. West, with the advance of the California Column
under Colonel James H. Carleton, raised the stars and
stripes over Tucson. Thus ended Confederate dreams of a
territory in the American Southwest and a convenient oor- 20 ridor to the Pacific.
While the Confederate forces were occupying Tucson
and subsequently being driven out, events were taking
place in Washington portending the political future of
Arizona. The Arizona Territory bill was reintroduced in
to Congress in December, 1861. With the Southerners ab
sent the sectional arguments were at a minimum and an
^^Peplow, History of Arizona, I, p. 373.
^ ^Wyllys, Ari zona » History of a Frontier State, p. 146, 20 Bancroft, History of Arizona, pp. 513-15. 13 anti-slavery proviso was included. The House passed the hill by a small majority on May 8, 1862. The Senate de
layed action on the bill until the following December.
It was finally voted on and passed on February 20, 1863 by a twenty-five to twelve majority and signed into law
by President Abraham Lincoln four days later. Unlike
former Arizona Territorial bills, this one asked for a north-south boundary line between New Mexico and Arizona
and provided the new territory with boundaries similar ?2 to those of the state today.
Arizona Territory was only two years old when the
Civil War ended. During that time, the government was
organized under Governor John N. Goodwin. A code was
enacted, counties designated, and a judicial system es- 23 tablished. The country, rich in minerals and stock
raising opportunities, offered inducements which encour
aged immigration. In spite of the still unconquered
terror of the Apache, settlers came in increasing numbers,
and Arizona Territory was launched on a forward march in
political developments.
22 Congressional Globe. 37th Congress, 2nd and 3rd sessions (microfilm, Matthews Library, Arizona State Uni versity, Tempe, Arizona), 2nd sess. pp. 1341-42, 2023-30, 3093-94; 3rd sess.,pp. 1125-28, 1306. 23 •"^Journals of the First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, 1st sess., 1864 (Prescott, Arizona, Office of the Arizona Miner, 1865), pp. 17-250. II. EARLY EFFORTS AT STATEHOOD* 1863-1890
The struggle of the Territory of Arizona to become a full-fledged state can be said quite honestly to extend over a period of forty years. The first formal efforts were made by Richard 0. McCormick, territorial delegate to
Congress from 1669 to 1875. A never-ceasing chain of events led to final success on February 14, 1912,when President
William Howard Taft issued a proclamation admitting Arizona as the forty-eighth state of the Union.
McCormick's efforts were premature,but there were many other forces at work in Arizona during the last two decades of the nineteenth century which led toward even- 25 tual statehood. Among these forces were the national publicity attendant upon the Apache Wars, the tall tales of Arizona's potential wealth, and the advent of the rail roads. All attracted settlers to the area from every state in the Union causing the rapid growth of Arizona's economy, especially in livestock, mining, agriculture and 26 lumbering.
^^Peplow, History of Arizona, II, p. 1.
Frank 0. Lockwood, Pioneer Days in Arizona* Prom the Spanish Occupation to Statehood (New York* The McMillan Company; 1932), p. 3^8. 26 Peplow, History of Arizona. II, pp. 1-2; Arizona's spectacular population growth is shown by the following figures* in 1870, 9,650 persons; 1880, 40,400; 1890, 88,243 (counting 28,623 Indians included for the 1890 census only); 1900, 122,931 ; 1910, 204,354. United States Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States* 1910. Population, Vol. II (Washington* Government Printing Office, 1913), p . 66. 15 Arizona pioneers, for the most part, were an in dependent, self sufficient lot, who thoroughly believed in their own ability, political or otherwise. They were civic minded, and it wasn't long after receiving terri torial status that they began to rebel at the Washington appointed government officials they received. When Pres ident Grover Cleveland, following his election in 1884, bluntly refused to appoint any Arizonans to Arizona officer), the serious efforts to gain statehood were increased. Many followers were won to the advocates of statehood by the claims that this would encourage the building of more rail roads which, in turn, would bring in more settlers to 27 share the burden of taxation.
In 1889, Governor C. Meyer Zulick, President Grover
Cleveland's appointee, neatly summed up majority opinion among Arizoneuis on the question of statehood in his mes sage to the territorial legislature when he stated*
A territorial government, depriving, as it does, the citizen of full participation in the government under which he lives, is repugnant to the enlightened sense of the American people, and there is no question but that our progress would be more rapid and our prosperity would be quickened if these disabilities were removed.
27 Peplow, History of Arizona, II, p. 7. PR Journals of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona (Prescott, Arizona* Courier Book & Job Printing Establishment, 1889), pp. 24-25. 16
About this time a fundamental change was taking place in the Arizona mining industry. As mines grew and prospered, they were bought by corporations, the owner** of which were for the most part absentees. Previous to this time mines had been worked mainly by their owners side by side with their hired hands. Under these circum stances, the employees had direct and daily contact with their bosses. Under the impact of professional manage ment employees began to feel the desire to protect their 29 own interests in the territorial government.
They were not slow to realize, nor were the advo cates of statehood slow to remind them, that under the system of territorial government they actually had no voice whatever. Even though they sent their own chosen representatives to the territorial legislature. Congress still had the ultimate power to override and nullify any act of the territorial legislature or administration. Thus, if the corporate interests in the East which owned the mines were so minded and sufficiently powerful politically, they could conceivably impel Congress to act against the best in terests of the Arizona laboring people. Therefore, it was argued that the laboring people could not be completely as sured of the full benefits of self-government until Arizona became a state.
^^Peplow, History of Arizona. II, pp. 8-9.
^°Ibld. 17
In 1889 the Arizona territorial legislature unanimously passed a hill calling for a convention to
draw up a constitution for statehood. The measure, known as Public Act #59, was signed into law by the 31 incumbent Governor C. Meyer Zulick. Just at this time
Governor Lewis Wolfley’s appointment by President
Benjamin Harrison was confirmed by the United States
Senate* Upon taking office, Governor Wolf ley began to review the acts of the legislature. Deeming Public Act
#59 an "unwise measure," he refused to issue the neces
sary proclamation calling for the election of delegates
to the constitutional convention as required by law. 32 This action outraged the supporters of Arizona statehood.
Governor Wolf ley was later removed from office by the . 33 Harrison administration.
^ Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona (Prescott. Arizona: Courier & Jo¥~Printing Establishment, 1889), pp. 84-88. ^^United States Congress, The Congressional Record. 51st Congress, 1st Session (Washington* Government Printing Office, 1890), XXI, pp. 2946 and 2950.
^^Effie R. Keen, "Arizona's Governors," ^Izona Historical Review. III» (October, 1930), pp. 7-20. III. BACKGROUND OF THE CORSTITUTIONAIi CONVENTION OF 1891
During the period between Governor Lewis Wolfley's resignation and the appointment of Governor John N. Irwin, the territorial secretary, Nathan 0. Murphy, served as acting-governor. In his first address to the 1891 ter ritorial legislature Murphy stated, "The people of Arizona are very desirous of self-government, and in my judgment the Territory is ready and qualified. . . . Whereupon the legislature, acting upon Mr. Murphy's initiative, passed Council Bill #16, calling for a convention to frame a state constitution, subject to popular ratification.. On
Mardh 19, 1891, Governor John N. Irwin, recently arrived from lowa^ signed the bill into law.
Known as Public Act #66, the law called for an elec tion on May 2, 1891 of twenty-two delegates which were to be chosen by counties. Section 8 permitted the convention to propose any article for separate ratification or rejec tion by the electorate. Section 9 authorized the convention, if it so chose, to provide for the election of state officers at the same time the constitution was submitted to the voters. Although both discretionary powers were never used.
Journals of the Sixteenth Lecislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona TPhoenix, Arizona: Herald Book & Job Print Office, 1891), pp. 38-39. ^^News item in The Ari zona Republican ^Pho enix%, May 22, 1891, pp. 1-3. 19 their existence created a good deal of public furor, es pecially with regard to the Idaho test oath issue, to be discussed later.
On March 24, 1891 Gtovernor Irwin issued the proclama tion which called for the election of delegates. The fol lowing May 2 the citizens of Arizona Territory went to the polls to choose those whom they felt were qualified to write a constitution by which the future state would be 37 governed.
The Arizona Republican printed a complete list of the newly elected delegates, and in his 1891 report to the Secretary of the Interior, Acting-Governor Nathan 0.
Murphy clearly indicated which party controlled the con vention*
. . . In the election of delegates to the present convention in Arizona party lines were drawn and partisan nominations made, and al though the contest was but in a few instances aggressively conducted it resulted in the elec tion of 17 Démocraties and 5 Republicans, and the organization of the convention was parti san .... It is sincerely to be hoped that extreme zeal for partisan advantage will not be allowed to jeopardize our chances for ad mission.*©
^^Aots. Resolutions, and Manorials of the Sixrteenth Legislative Assembly, pp. 97-100.
^^News item in The Arizona Republican. March 25, 1891, p. 4.
^®Ibid.. September 8, 1891, p. 1; Report of the Aoting-Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior* 1891 Washington* Government Printing Office, 1891), p. 40. 20
The prevailing Republican viewpoint on the parti
sanship of the convention was summed up editorially at the time in a local newspaper*
The "non-partisan" attitude of the Constitu tional Convention cannot be better shown than in the formation of its committees, of which there are thirteen. Out of this number the only chair manship given to the Republicans is that of the comparatively unimportant committee on education and school lands. One of its members stated to a Tucson paper that "Republicans will be heard and heeded with quite as much attention and re spect as the Democrats." This is indeed magnani mous and at once removes all lingering suspicions some persons not well informed may have entertained that the Convention is a m o b . *9
On the Democratic side The Tombstone Prospector had this revealing comment to make*
It is to be hoped that the Constitution framers will make no mistakes by which Arizona may fail to get into the Union. A little strategy on the part of the Democratic majority may be worth a great deal to the cause of statehood, which in its most favorable light is a question not at all a one-sided one, except in the minds ox a vasx majority of Arizona's f r i e n d s . 40
The biographical material available on the twenty-
two men who made up Arizona's 1891 constitutional conven
tion is, in some instances, quite meager and yet there is
sufficient to show that the territory was not lacking in
^^Editorial in The Florence Enterprise /%rizona% reprinted in The Arizona Joumal-Mlner /rreeoott7. ” September 24, 1891, p. 2. "
^^News item in The Tombstone Prospector ^Xrizona/, September 16, 1891. ~ 21 men strong in intellectual and physical stamina. Many of them had participated in the varied and active careers which were typical of the nineteenth century western pioneers*
IV. BACKGROUND OF THE DELEGATES
TO THE CONVENTION
The citizens of Apache County elected John Hunt and
Art McDonald as their delegates to the constitutional con vention. Hunt, as a very young man, joined the famous
Mormon Battalion during the Mexican War and marched with them from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to Los Angeles, California.
He fought Indians in the Walker and Black Hawk Wars and was a peace officer at Beaver, Utah, for twelve years. From
1877 until 1908 he lived in the struggling Mormon community of Snowflake, Arizona Territory, where he was the bishop of the Mormon Church, as well as a supervisor of Apache County and an active force in civic affairs.
The only available information on Art McDonald
stated that he was a probate judge in Apache County and later, in 1894, served for a short time as managing
editor of the St. Johnè; Herald /Xrizona/.^^
Joseph Morris Richard, "Life of John Hunt," Mormon Pioneers of Northern Arizona (typewritten Ms, Phoenix, Arizona, 1938), pp. 52-62.
^^News item in The Tempe News ^Xrizona/, October 6, 1894, p. 4; Estelle Lutrell, "Newspapers and”Periodicals of Arizona, 1864-1911," University of Arizona Bulletin (July, 1949), XX, p. 49. 22
Cochise County contributed one of the most public spirited and politically active men in Arizona Territory to the convention in the person of Marcus Aurelius Smith.
Smith was b o m near Gynthana, Harrison County, Kentucky, on January 24, 1851. He graduated from Transylvania
University at Lexington, Kentucky and received his law de gree from the University of Kentucky. He taught school in
Bourbon County, Kentucky before moving to San Francisco where he practiced law from 1879 to 1881. Smith then moved to Tombstone, Arizona Territory and was elected pro secuting attorney of Cochise County the following year.^^
With the exception of three terms Smith was Arizona's
Territorial Delegate to the United States Congress between the years 1887-1909, and his was one of the best records among those of the Democratic Representatives in the West.
He was instrumental in obtaining federal funds for public buildings, irrigation projects and other public improve ments in Arizona, He was among the first of the Represen tatives to advocate federal reclamation projects and helped write the original Federal Reclamation Act. In the effort to secure statehood for Arizona he was the only Territorial
^^United States Congress, House of Representatives, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, House Document No. 607, Biographical Directory of the American Congress t 1774- 1949 (Washington* (yovernment Printing Office, 1950;, p. 1831 • 23
Representative to succeed in passing an Arizona state hood bill through the House twice. On each occasion the bill was killed in the Senate.
Smith was influential in defeating the Joint
Arizona-New Mexico Statehood Bill of 1904 by inserting an amendment requiring separate elections in each terri tory, rather than a joint election. Arizonans voted over four to one against the bill, whereupon Congress promptly dropped it&^^ Prom the time Arizona became a state in 1912 until 1921 Smith served as her United States Senator. He was appointed by President Woodrow Wilson to the Inter national Joint Commission established to settle disputes regarding boundary waters between the United States and
Canada. He died in Washington, D* C. on April 7, 1924.^^
A second Cochise County delegate was William Herring who was born in 1833 in New Brunswick, New Jersey. He was a New York City high school teacher and principal who ven tured into politics as a New York state legislator.
^^Portrait and Biographical Record of Arizona (Chicago % Chapman Publishing Company, 190177 PP» 980-81.
George H. Kelley, Legislative History of Arizonat 1864-1912(Phoenix. Arizona* Manufacturing Stationers, 1926), pp. 288-99.
^^U. S. Congress, Biographical Directory of the American Congress, p. 1831.
James H. McClintock, Arizona. The Youngest State (Chicago* The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1916), III, pp. 392-93. 24
The death of a brother and the subsequent inheri tance by the family of a mining claim brought Herring to
Tombstone, Arizona Territory in 1880. His purpose was to develop the claim and as a result he became the general manager of the Neptune Mining Company which soon went out of business. He later became a successful mining and cor poration lawyer in Tombstone and Cochise County. Among his clientele was the Copper Queen Mining Company, later the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, one of the giants in the mining industry of Arizona.^®
Herring was territorial attorney-general under
Grovernors John N. Irwin and Nathan 0. Murphy and was long considered a power in Southern Arizona politics. He was the first president of the Arizona Bar Association and chancellor of the University of Arizona at Tucson for many years. 49
The third delegate from Cochise County and one of the seven Republicans elected to the convention was
George W. Cheyney. He was b o m in Philadelphia, September
1, 1854 and received his education there in the public schools. He lived in New York City between 1871 and 1877»
chard C. Sloan, Memories of an Arizona Judge (Stanford, California* Stanford University Press, 1932), pp. 95-98.
^^McClintock, Arizona* The Youngest State, pp. 293-295. 25 and again in Philadelphia during 1877-1879 • From 1679 to 1881 Cheyney lived successively in Atchison, Kansas;
Leadville, Colorado; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and finally settled in Tombstone, Arizona. He entered the mining business and soon became superintendent of the
Tombstone Mill and Miining Compahy, a position he re- 50 tained for five years.
He was a staunch Republican and served on the Re publican Central Committees of Cochise County and Arizona
Territory. He was an unsuccessful candidate for Terri torial Delegate in 1891 and served as delegate from Co chise County in the council or upper house of the fifteenth and seventeenth territorial legislatures for the years
1889-1891 and 1893-1895. He was superintendent of public instruction under Governors lewis Wolf ley, John N. Irwin and Nathan 0. Murphy, He also served as ex-officio member of the Board of Regents of the University of Arizona and was appointed postmaster of Tucson by President William
McKinley in July, 1898.^^
Coconino County's lone delegate, Thomas Gilbert
Norris, was b o m in Green Forest, Carroll County, Arkansas.
^®Portrait & Biographical Record of Arizona, pp. 113-114.
^^Ibid.; The Tombstone Prospector /Irizona/, October 5, 1888, p. 3; November 20, 1Ô88, p. 3* 26
He graduated from the University of Iowa in 1883 with a law degree and came to St. Johns, Arizona Territory in
1884 • He moved to Flagstaff where he became a prominent attorney in corporation and mining law. Norris was active in political affairs and was elected councilman-at-large to the upper house of the seventeenth territorial legisla- cp ture. In 1893 he served as president of the council where he was a strong advocate of a system of permanent highways throughout Arizona. He was twice elected presi dent of the Arizona Bar Association. In 1893 he moved to
Prescott and later to Phoenix, Arizona, where he became pres- 53 ident of the Commercial National Bank of Phoenix.
Gila County contributed Alonzo Bailey, b o m in
Dresden, Ohio, in 1847. He graduated from Kenyon College after which he went West to seek his fortune. For two years he engaged in farming and dairy work at Port Lupton,
Colorado. He then did contract work for three years with the Santa Fe and the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas railroads in Texas and Kansas. In 1872 he moved to Silver City, New
Mexico, where he erected a sawmill and did other local work.
^^Jo Conners (ed.). Who * s Who in Arizona (Tucson, Arizona* Arizona Daily Star Press, 1913), I, pp. 523-24.
^^Richard E. Sloan, History of Arizona (Phoenix, Arizona* Recording Publishing Company, 1930), III, pp. 579-580. 27 Bailey moved to Globe, Arizona Territory in Gila County in 1877 where he engaged in the manufacture of ice and worked as a mining operator until 1900. He served as president of the Old Dominion Commercial Company of Globe, founded in 1891. He acquired valuable real estate hold ings in the area and was a prominent Episcopal layman.
As a member of the Democratic Party, he was elected dele gate from Gila County to the council of the thirteenth territorial legislature during the years 1885-1887.
In 1893 he was appointed clerk of the district court in
Globe, Gila County.
Graham County elected A. N. Patterson, fdT vho# no further biographical information is available, and
Ben M. Crawford,who was born in Maryland in 1847. Craw ford came to Arizona Territory in 1879 and engaged in prospecting and mining. Elected sheriff of Graham County in 1884 he cleared up much lawlessness then existing in the county. A staunch democrat he was active in state politics for thirty years. After the formation of Green lee County from a part of Graham County in 1910, Crawford was appointed clerk of the superior court of the new county* 57
^^Portrait & Biographical Record of Arizona, p. 24*
^^Bancroft, History of Arizona, p. 539.
^^News item in The Nogales Oasis /Arizona/, June 1, 1893, p. 3. ^^Eelley, legislative History of Arizona, p. 155; Conners, Who's Who in Arizona, pp. 581-58É. 28
Of the three delegates from Maricopa Oounty infor mation on Marshall H. Williams states briefly that, be
sides being a delegate to the 1891 constitutional conven
tion, he served as district attorney of Maricopa Oounty
from January, 1897 to January, 1899*^^
T. 0. Jordan, also elected to the convention from
Maricopa County, served on the council of the fifteenth
territorial legislature from 1887 to 1889. Later, in
1898, he was appointed immigration commissioner for Mari- 59 copa County.
The third delegate to the convention of 1891 from
Maricopa County was Henry Nash Alexander who was born in
Zanesville, Ohio on October 14, 1832. He went to San
Francisco in 1851 and shortly afterwards moved to Los
Angeles. In 1864 he went to Yuma, Arizona Territory as
a transportation master. Afterwards he became associated with W. B. Hooper & Company, merchants and government
contractors.
^®Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona, p. 153; News item in The Arizona Republican/Phoenix/, January 3, 1897, p. 8.
^^News item in The Arizona Miner-Journal /Prescott/ May 24, 1898, p. 2; Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona* pp. 145, 155.
®®News item in The Graham County Bulletin /Slobe, Arizona/, August 9, 1895, p. 1. 29 Alexander was admitted to the Arizona Bar Associa tion in 1873, after which, in 1874, Governor A, P. K,
Safford appointed him probate judge for Yuma County.
His varied career as a public servant included the official positions of sheriff, district attorney and superintendent of the public schools. He declined the nomination to the legislative council from Yuma County in 1880 and in 1882 was appointed to the Democratic Central Committee of that county. In 1883 he moved to Phoenix and for a time served as secretary of the hoard of prison commissioners. In 1889
Governor C. Meyer Zulick appointed him territorial attorney- general. He died August 15, 1895.^^
From Mohave County came Poster S. Dennis, a delegate to the legislative council of 1891-95. He was the only mem ber of the sixteenth legislature to be elected as a delegate to the constitutional convention held later in that year.
Dennis was the choice of a faction of the Arizona Democratic
Party, headed by former Governor G. Meyer Zulick, to succeed the incumbent, Nathan 0, Murphy. Nevertheless President
News item in The Weekly Phoenix Herald /Irizona/. October 17, 1895, p. 4 1 News item in The Tucson Daily Citizen /Arizona/, July 4, 1874, p. 2. ^^News item in The Grsiham County Bulletin /Globe, Arizona/, August 9, 1895, F» ^•
^^News item in The Weekly Phoenix Herald, October 17, 1895, p. 4. 30
Grover Cleveland appointed L. C, Hughes, editor of The
Tucson Star, as governor,
Pima County contributed three delegates to the convention of 1891* William Henry Barnes, William A.
Hartt and Francis Henry Hereford. Each individual, in his own way, was active and energetic in the political and ec onomic development of Arizona Territory.
Illinois born William Henry Bames was admitted to the Indiana Bar Association, after which he became a lawyer for the Wabash Railroad Company. He entered politics as a delegate from Indiana to the Democratic National Convention of 1876-1860 and 1884 and was well known to Democratic
Party leaders in Arizona. He moved to Tucson in 1885 and
Governor 0. Meyer Zulick promptly appointed him associate chief justice of the Arizona gupreme gourt, a position which he held until 1889. Judge Bames was later a lawyer for W. C. Greene, a copper magnate and owner of Greene
Consolidated Copper Company. He was also president of the
Cieneguita Copper Company of Sonora, Mexico. Barnes was the second president of the Arizona Bar Association and an able speaker and a strong debater, all of which con tributed to his desirability as an active participant in
^^Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona. pp. 155-57, 164-66, 31 Arizona politics. He was a delegate from the territory to the Democratic National Convention of 1892, and passed away November 10, 1904.
William A. Hartt was an unusually enterprising man who, quite literally, turned a portion of the barren desert into a garden paradise. In October, 1888 he filed a desert land claim in the Santa Cruz River Valley, eighteen miles south of Tucson. Hartt drilled through sixty feet of rock to reach water which he lifted by means of a steam pump in to a ditch two feet deep and eight feet wide. By this means he placed over one hundred acres of desert land into cultivation raising fruit trees, vineyards, vegetables and com. He built a small mill to grind the com,and accom plished all of this activity in two years. The Arizona
Daily Star felt that if other citizens of Arizona had Hartt's energy and perseverance, his feat could be duplicated in a thousand places and thus turn Arizona into a garden paradise.
Eventually Hartt tired of desert farming and became a manu facturer of improved mining machinery in Los Angeles.®®
Francis Henry Hereford was born November 21, 1861 in
Sacramento, California. His family moved to Virginia City,
®^McClintock, Arizona. The Youngest State. Ill, pp. 422-25. ®®News item in The Arizona Daily Star /Tucson/, December 3, 1890, p. 3, September 9, 1897, p. 3» 32
Nevada during his early childhood. In 1869 he entered
McClure's Academy at Oakland, California. He later at tended City College in San Francisco, Santa Clara College and the University of the Pacific near San Jose, California.
In 1876. Hereford moved to Tucson, Arizona Territory where he studied law for four months while working for the mercan tile concern of Lord & Williams. In 1876 he moved to Tomb stone, Arizona, where he was a general agent for several stage lines. He served as a deputy sheriff under John H.
Behan for eighteen months. Hereford then went to Prescott,
Arizona to become private secretary to his uncle, Grovemor
Frederick A. Tritle, also a delegate to the constitutional convention. Eight months later he became bookkeeper for the United Verde Copper Company, owned principally by his uncle, until the mines closed. He then returned to Tucson and completed his law studies under his father's direction and was admitted to the Arizona Bar Association in 1886,
After three years on his own, Hereford formed a partnership with his father. Upon his father's death the Pima County board of supervisors appointed him to succeed his father as district attorney. In the fall of 1892 he was elected to that office on the Democratic ticket and served from January,
1893 to January, 1895. An active Democrat he served as sec retary and as chairman of the Pima County Democratic Central
Committee and as a member of the Arizona Territorial Central 33 Committee. From 1895 on he engaged in private law prac tice. He was interested in mining throughout Southern
Arizona and owned several ranches and much real estate in Tucson.®^
Delegates from Pinal County were John W. Anderson and Thomas Davis. Anderson was horn in North Carolina in
1626. He moved to Mariposa County, California in 1850 where he engaged in mining. Before moving to Arizona, he lived successively in Washington, where he served in the territorial legislature, in Idaho, Montana, hack to Idaho, and finally to Florence, Arizona Territory. Anderson was a practicing attorney who had considerable experience as 6S an Arizona law-maker. He represented Pinal County in the house of the fifth, sixth and twelvth legislatures for the years 1868-1873, 1883-1885, and served in the council of the eleventh and fourteenth legislatures during the years
1881-1883 and 1885-1887.®^ Thomas Davis was an Englishman by birth who became
a farmer and rancher in Pinal County. He and Richard E.
Sloan, the last territorial governor of Arizona, bought
®'^Portrait & Bio graphical Record of Arizona, pp. 900-903.
®®News item in The Arizona Weekly Star /Tucson/, February 3, 1881, p. 4.
®^Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona, pp. 41, 49, 89, 1Ô4, 13Ô. 34 the 1,700 acre Kenilworth Ranch in Casa Grande Valley during the late 1880's. The ranch specialized in breed ing fine horses and became a showplace throughout the 70 Southwest. The ranch went bankrupt during the 1893 panic.
Davis served as representative from Pinal County in the council of the eighteenth territorial legislature, 1895- 1897.*^^ Yavapai County elected three delegates to the con vention: William A. Rowe, John Frank Wilson, and Frederick
August Tritle. Of the three, only Rowe and Wilson attended.
Rowe was a veteran Arizona politician and legislator. He was a representative from Yavapai County in the house of representatives during the twelfth and twenty-second ter ritorial legislatures, 1883-1885 and 1903-1905, and in the
council of the tenth legislature, 1879-1881.*^^ A loyal Dem
ocrat, Rowe served as chairman of the Arizona Territorial 73 Democratic Convention held in Prescott, September 16, 1898.
Following his election as president of the constitutional
convention of 1891, The Arizona Republican stated that.
^^Sloan, Memories of an Arizona Judge, pp. 65-70.
Sidney Kartus, "In Memoriam," Arizona Historical Review. IV (April, 1931), pp. 77-79.
^^Bancroft, History of Arizona, pp. 538-39; Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona, pp. 87, 104.
^^News item in The Arizona Journal-Miner /Prescott/, September 16, 1898, p. 1. 35 "Mr. Rowe is an old timer in the Territory and. is credited with more than ordinary ability.
John Frank Wilson was born near Pulaski, Giles County,
Tennessee on May 7, 1846. He moved with his parents to
Alabama where he attended public school and Rhuhama College.
He served in the Confederate Army as a member of Company B,
First Battalion Volunteer Infantry, and later, until 1863» was on staff duty under General Hindman, after which he served as lieutenant colonel of a regiment. After the Civil
War he studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1866. He commenced his law practice in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he served as a representative in the state congress, 1877-
1878. He was prosecuting attorney for the Fourth Judicial
District in 1885-1886. Wilson moved to Prescott, Arizona, in 1887 and continued the pradtice of law. He was probate
judge of Yavapai County in 1893-1895; a delegate to the
Democratic National Convention of 1396, and Governor Ben jamin J. Franklin appointed him attorney general of Ari zona during 1896-1897. He served as Territorial Delegate in the House of Representatives during the Fifty-First and
Fifty-Third Congresses, 1899-1901 and 1903-1905. He died in Prescott April 7, 1911
^^News item in The Arizona Republican /Thoenix/ » September 9» 1891, p. 2.
S. Congress, Biographical Directory of the American Congress, pp. 2028-29. 36
Frederick August Tritle was b o m August 7» 1833 in
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania• He practiced law in Iowa,
California,and Nevada, where he was well known in mining and business circles. In 1880 he moved to Arizona where he became one of the original founders of the United Verde
Copper Company, a giant in its field until it went bank rupt several years later. Thanks to the political in fluence of his friend. Senator John P. Jones of Nevada,
Tritle was appointed Governor of the Territory of Arizona by President Chester A. Arthur on March 8, 1882. Governor
Tritle was the first territorial chief executive to be a permanent resident of Arizona. His administration was noteworthy for many needed social reforms and for rapid economic growth throughout the territory.^® Although he was elected a delegate from Yavapai County to the Consti tutional Convention of 1891, he did not attend.In 189-9
President William McKinley appointed him supervisor of the census for Arizona. Accordingly, he had charge of the
1900 census for the territory. He died November 18, 1906, in Phoenix.^®
*^®Portrait and Biographical Record of Arizona. pp. 101-102.
Journal8 of the Constitutional Convention of Arizona: 1891 (Phoenix. Arizona: Phoenix Herald Power Printers, 1891)» p. 15. T8 Portrait and Biographical Record of Arizona. p. 102. 37 The delegate from Yuma County was Thomas Gates, horn in Mount Pleasant, Durham County, Ontario, Canada,
on January 8, 1834. He first came to Arizona in 1865 but moved to Albuquerque and later to Santa Fe, New Mexico,
in 1866.^^ He settled near Tucson in 1876 or 1877 and be
came quite active in the Democratic Party affairs of Pima
County. He was a lobbyist during the 1883-1685 terri tor- 80 ial legislature. He served as superintendent of the Ari
zona Territorial Prison at Yuma in 1886-1888 and suffered
a butcherknife wound during a convict outbreak October 27»
1887. While again serving as superintendent in 1896 he 81 committed suicide on March 13 of that year. * From the foregoing biographical sketches of the
delegates to the Arizona constitutional convention of 1891,
it can be ascertained that all parts of the territory were
accurately represented by men more or less distinguished
for their abilities, character, and previous legislative go experience. Acting-Govemor Nathan 0. Murphy said of them,
^^News item in The Arizona Daily Citizen /Tucson/ March 16, 1896, pp. 1-2.
®^A Historical and Biographical Record of the Territory of Arizona. TOhicagot McFar 1 and and Poole, 1896), pp. 609-611. R1 News item in The Arizona Daily Citizen. March 16, 1896, pp. 1— 2. go McClintock, Arizona the Youngest State, II, p. 362. 38
"The Convention is strong intellectually, and contains some of our best citizens," which would indicate that
Arizona was fortunate, indeed, in the selection of her political leaders at the 1891 convention.®^
The citizens of Arizona Territory were very ser iously concerned with the type of constitution which the combined efforts of the delegates would conceive. The newspapers commented on the question with varying degrees of optimism or pessimism flavored with good sound advice.
In one instance The Arizona Daily Star stated:
With a liberal constitution, absolutely void of any pitfalls, or ambiguous provisions on impor tant features of state government, there is no just reason why statehood should not be assured to Ari zona. The adoption of the Constitution by the people will prove to be an independent matter, for it will indicate to Congress the opinion of the people on both the constitution and their desire for self government. The all-important considera tion is, a good constitution and then to submit the same on its merits without any political al liance.84 In contrast to the above viewpoint. The Arizona
Sentinel expressed its feelings on the subject as follows:
The members of the Constitutional Convention will soon meet to draft a constitution for the State of Arizona. What shall it be? If like some of our
®^Renort of the Acting Grovemor to the Secretary of the Interior: 1891. p. 4.
®^Editorial in The Arizona Daily Star /Tucson/, September 13» 1891, p. 2. 59 laws, it better be nothing. Wyoming and Colorado both have excellent constitutions. Why not adopt one or the other? Let no mistakes be made. Pol itics should not enter into it. It should rise above either political party. It should be so clear and plain that a child can read and under stand it. It should be made the broad basis of a conservative, careful, economical, and honest ad ministration of the affairs of state, and one of which every member in later years . . . will be proud, and then Arizona can and will come to the front and her rich, varied, and proud natural re sources will be developed, and she will be placed where nature designed her to be in the very front of the newer states.85
In September 1891 the delegates met in Phoenix,
Arizona Territory, to begin the work of drafting a con stitution. No doubt each had the interests of the future state at heart, but it is only natural that there would be differences of opinion. However, a constitution was written and in the following December it was enthusiasti cally adopted by the people of the territory. Why Arizona was refused admittance into the Union at this time can only be answered by an examination of the 1891 constitu tion in conj-unction with the national events of the time.
®^Editorial in The Arizona Sentinel /Yuma/, August 29, 1891, p. 2. CHAPTSB III
THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION OF 1891
An article by article examination of the 1891 con stitution, as a finished product, brings to light the social, economic and moral obligations which were considered impor tant and necessary to face in the molding of a political government in the late nineteenth century.
Even then the exact meaning of the doctrine of the separation of church and state was the cause of a lively debate. During the formation of the preamble, which was modeled on that of the Federal Constitution of 1787,
Delegates William Herring, John W. Anderson, Henry N.
Alexander, Thomas G. Norris and W. H. B a m e s had a dis cussion over the exact wording. Herring and Bames wished a simple statement entitled, "We, the people of the State of Arizona do establish this constitution." Norris and
Alexander argued for the inclusion of the Divine Deity basing their arguments on the grounds that exclusion of
God would Jeopardize needed support from the clergy of
Arizona for the successful adoption of the constitution.
Barnes countered that the doctrine of separation of church emd state prohibited the mentioning of God in the constitu tion. This argument carried little w e i ^ t because Norris' amendment mentioning the Supreme Being was adopted 41 by the convention.^
The territorial newspapers followed the formation of the constitution with avid interest and one of the earliest editorials commented on the preamble as adopted by the convention:
The Constitutional Convention showed its wis dom in a proper recognition of a supreme being /sic7 in the constitution. How any man in this age or generation could oppose such a recognition is be yond comprehension. Mr. Norris of Coconino and those who supported him will ever command the re spect of the people, especially the large moral element of Arizona.2
Article I of the 1891 constitution provided for the classic distribution of authority into the executive, leg- ■5 islative and judicial branches of state government.
Article II was patterned after the Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution with the addition of several sections considered important to the delegates representing the citizens of Arizona Territory in the writing of a state constitution.^
United States Congress, House of Representatives, 52nd Congress, 1st Session, House Report No. 737, Consti tution for the State of Arizona, as Adopted by the Consti tutional Convention Friday October 2, 1891 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1893), p. 11.
^Editorial in The Arizona Daily Star /Tucson/, September 24, 1891, p. 2.
^U. S. Congress, House Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 11.
^Ibid.. pp. 11- 13. 42
Of these additional sections, number 16 dealt with the currency questions and will be discussed later in con nection with the free silver controversy. Section 17 pro vided that no person should be imprisoned for debt, except
in case of fraud. Section 18 stated that no person should be outlawed or transported out of the state for any offense
committed within the state. Section 19 prohibited monopolies
and impowered the legislature to regulate corporations and
other grants of franchise. Section 22 declared that big
amy and the practice of polygamy were felonies and persons
found guilty of either should be punished as those convicted 5 of other felonies.
The adoption of section 22 triggered the hottest
political struggle of the entire convention. Acting-
Govemor Nathan 0. Murphy adequately summarized the con
test in his 1891 Report to the Secretary of the Interior:
The principal bone of contention so far de veloped between the political parties in the con vention is the question of following the example of Idaho in the matter of the "test oath" as applied to Mormons exercising the right of franchise. The Democrats oppose the "test oath" and the Republicans favor it. The Democrats claim that the Republicans favor the measure because the Mormons of Arizona vote the Democratic ticket, and the question is en tirely political and not moral, and the proposed "oath" if required by the constitution would be an unjust and unconstitutional discrimination on ac count of religious belief; that the Mormons have
^Ibid.. p. 12. 43 renoimoed the practice of polygamy and bigamy by edict of their church authorities, and that they ' conform to the laws of the country, are worthy people, and are entitled to the same consideration accorded to other citizens. On the other hand the Republicans claim that the Mormons vote the Demo cratic ticket to a man; that the renunciation of the crimes of polygamy and bigamy by edict of their leaders is not sincere, and is only done for a pur pose, and that these crimes against society still form the keystone of the arch to their faith; that they do not recognize the supremacy of the State over their church ; that they exercise the right of franchise blindly as a class and under orders from selfish and interested motives, and are consequently unfitted to exercise such a right, no matter what political party they favor, unless they are willing to subscribe to the /above mentioned oath/. . . . It is true that they /Ihe Mormons/ do now hold the balance of political power in Arizona.6
Basing its figures on the above report. The San
Francisco Chronicle stated that around 12,000 Mormons out of a total population of less than 70,000 persons were living in the Arizona Territory. Without doubt, the Mormon 7 vote was a powerful force in Arizona politics.
In 1885 the thirteenth territorial legislature passed O a bill disfranchising the Mormons. Republican Governor
Frederick A. Tritle, the only elected delegate who did not
Report of the Acting Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior: 1891 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891), p. 40. 7 Editorial in The San Francisco Chronicle reprinted in The Arizona Daily Citizen /Tucson/, October 14, 1891, p. 2.
sêS and Women of Arizona. Past and Present (Phoenix: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1940), pp. 7-9« 44 attend the 1891 convention, signed the hill into law.
In 1887 Democratic Governor C. Meyer Zulick persuaded the fourteenth territorial legislature to repeal the Q law, thus restoring the franchise to the Mormons.
The Edmunds Act, passed hy Congress in 1887, made every irregular union between the sexes a criminal of fense and was made applicable in all Federal territories.
At first this law was rigorously enforced, especially in
Utah. A number of Mormons in Arizona were prosecuted and convicted of polygamy, while other persons than Mormons were prosecuted under the act for adultery and similar offenses. In Arizona Territory irregular unions were frequent, especially among the poorer classes of Spanish
speaking peoples, who considered common law marriage an acceptable social institution. Many Arizona men, considered respectable, had Spanish mistresses. Accordingly, the
United States District Attorneys in Arizona had to proceed 10 with great care in the enforcement of the Edmunds Act.
The Tombstone Prospector pointed out the injustice
of the Edmunds Act in the following editorial*
^Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona (Phoenix* Phoenix Herald Powers Printers, 189177 P- 8. ^®Richard E. Sloan, Memories of an Arizona Judge (Stanford, California* Stanford University Press, 1932), pp. 116-120. 45
. « . The wholesale arrests of persons charged with not living up to the Edmunds Act may he carried too far and where it is, trouble is liable to follow. The Senator from Vermont must have had the Green Mountain boys in mind when he framed the famous bill bearing his name. ’/Vhen a man or woman is falsely accused of transgressing the laws of society, some thing falls besides tears.11
The Edmunds Act and the related Idaho Test Oath had many supporters who voiced their opinions through the me dium of the newspapers. An editorial in The Arizona Ee- imbiican, then owned by former Governor Lewis Wolf ley, stated that the Idaho Test Oath was a contributing factor in the achievement of statehood by that state. It further offered the advice that, if Arizona wished success, some- 12 thing similar should be included in the 1891 constitution.
The editorial expressed little faith in the edict of the Morman Ohurch to discontinue polygamy accomplishing it in fact and stated*
. . . All intelligent persons know and his tory teaches us the craftiness of the Mormon Church and its leaders. Its avowal that polygamy is to be no longer tolerated or countenanced among its fol lowers is by all recognized as an attempt by the church to check prosecution of its members by the United States government and is received with many grains of allowance. That its members do yet prac-
^^Editorial in The Tombstone Prospector /Arizona/, September 22, 1891, p. 2.
^^Editorial in The Arizona Republican /Phoenix/, September 27, 1891, p. 2. 46
tice polygamy, and within the borders of Arizona, is patent from our court records. That it is the desire of all law-abiding citizens that polygamy should be stamped out will not be denied. That it can be while the ballot remains in the hands of those who practice it has been by the history of Utah and Idaho proven impossible.
The Edmunds . . . Act was the outcome of heroic attempts on the part of the United States government to suppress this evil after the re peated attempts and failures of the territories to overcome it. These facts fully realized by the people of Idaho, caused that territory to place in her constitution the proviso for a test oath as a condition to the exercise of the elec tion franchise, thereby putting up the bars against those who practiced polygamy when her statehood re moved Federal authority and power from exercising any hand in her state government.13
In line with the preponderance of Republican views on the above subject, William Herring of Cochise County introduced an amendment to the constitution to the effect that t
Any person who teaches or practices polygamy or who belongs to an association which encourages such practice or any other crime is declared to be ineligible to vote at any election authorized by law to be held in the state or in any of the political divisions thereof. . . .14
Th^ amendment further required «that any elected official of the state or political division should, before taking office, be required to make an oath before an authorized
"•^Ibid.
^^News item in The Arizona Jourhal-Miner /Prescott/, September 24, 1891, p. 2. 47 person, that he did not teach or practice polygamy or be long to an association which did. At any of the state or county elections voters could be challenged on the above practices and be required to make oath before the elec tion board that he was not guilty of such. If he refused to make the oath his vote should be rejected and:
. . . Any person who knowingly, wilfully, and falsely makes the above oath required to be taken by a person whose vote is so challenged, shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall, up on conviction, be punished as the law provides. 15
In the September 27, 1891 edition of The Arizona
Republican the members of the convention were asked a crucial question, "Will the convention adopt the Idaho test oath, or will it confess that the Mormon vote is necessary for Democratic supremacy?"^^ The question was answered by the fact that the committee on the bill of rights reported adversely on Herring’s amendment and 17 the convention failed to act upon the matter.
Section 27 of the bill of rights declares public use of: private ways of necessity, reservoirs, drains,
^^Editorial in The Arizona Republican ^fhoenii/, September 27, 1891, p. 2.
^ ^Rews item in The Arizona Journal-Miner /Prescott/, September 29, 1691, p. 2. 48 flumes, ditches, roads, railroads, tramways, telephone, telegraph and electric lines, pipe lines, sewers, and bucket lines, on or across the lands of others for the purpose of agriculture, mining, milling, domestic live- 1R stock, or sanitary purposes.
Section 29 provides that the right of way over mountain passes, and through canyons is granted to all persons upon such terms as may be proscribed by law.
Section 50 declares the railroads of the state to be 1Q public highways.
The delegates next attempted to regulate homestead exemptions and an amendment making $4,000 the maximum of exemption was adopted by a convention vote of eleven to nine. However, the aritcle on homesteads and exemptions 20 was indefinitely postponed by a vote of twelve to six.
Article III of the 1891 constitution dealt with the executive branch of the state government. Section 1 declared that the governor, the secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, attorney-general and superinten-
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 757, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 13*
'’^Ibid. 20 Journals of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Arizona: 1891 (Phoenix, Arizona: Phoenix Herald Power Printers, 1891), p. 49. 49 dent of schools should he elected for a four year term.
Section 12 provided that the governor should, with the advice of the senate, appoint all officers whose elec tion was not provided for within the constitution or by law. Other sections dealt with normal executive functions 21 of state government.
Frank H. Hereford, delegate from Pima County was in favor of limiting the power of future legislatures 22 and felt that this was very important. Nevertheless, the convention did not severely restrict the legislative powers under the 1891 constitution and Article IV granted the customary powers to that branch of state government.
Section 2 provided that senators should be elected for a four year term and representatives for two years. Section
41 had an interesting prohibition against conflicts of in terest. The section declared that a member who had a per sonal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the legislature should disclose the fact and should not vote thereon. Article IV also allowed for 25 future reapportionment by the legislature.
^^Ibid.. pp. 15-15. ^^News item in The Arizona Daily Citizen /Tucson/, September 15, 1891» p. 4.
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 15-18. 50
The establishment of the judiciary evoked consider able discussion among the convention delegates. Various dollar limits were proposed restricting the jurisdiction of probate courts in real estate cases. Opinions varied greatly. Former Judge Henry N. Alexander of Maricopa
County insisted that no state gave probate courts juris diction except in probate matters. A. N. Patterson of
Graham County proposed a $1,000 limit while Anderson urged $2,000. Frank H. Hereford of Pima County stated that four district court judges were doing all the busi ness at that time and the six now proposed could do all court business without aid from the probate judges. The matter was then referred to the judiciary committee.
As finally adopted by the convention, Article V stated that the judicial power of the state should be vested in one supreme court, district courts, probate courts, justices of the peace, and such inferior courts
as might be provided by law. The supreme court was to consist of three judges elected for overlapping six year terms, and should have original jurisdiction in quo warranto,
in mandamus and habaes corpus and appellate jurisdiction in
all other cases. Until otherwise provided for by law, the
^^News item in The Arizona Republican /Phoenix/ September 26, 1891, p. 1. 51 state should be divided into three judicial districts, which should have original general jurisdiction of all
causes in law and equity, as might be provided by law.
Each district judge was to be elected to a four year
term. Each county was to have a probate court, which would be a court of record and held by one judge elected
for a two year term of office. The legislature was to
provide for the election of justices of the peace and 25 district attorneys in each county of the state.
The classic topic of debate among legislatures and
constitutional conventions alike is taxation and revenue.
The 1891 convention was no exception. By that time ter
ritorial finances were in a sad condition due to inade
quate taxation and improper assessment of real estate. In
his inaugural address to the sixteenth legislature, Acting-
Governor Nathan 0. Murphy spoke at considerable length on
these related subjects*
It is observed at the meetings of the Terri torial Board of Equalization /that/ representatives of the different railroads nearly"always appear and ask for reductions in valuations. These corpora tions have the same rights as other taxpayers, and are entitled to the same fair and equitable assess ments, even subsidized lines and roads having re ceived the benefits of the land grants. They should be fully taxed, however, and it is believed that
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 18-20. 52
the Territorial officers will do them justice in this respect. . . .26
The question of taxing the proceeds of mines has always met with active opposition from the mining interests. The personal property of mining companies is now taxed, and in my opinion, there is no good reason why the profits of mining enterprises, if they can he properly reached without jeopardizing Territorial progress, should not be taxed. Under the statutes the Territorial Board of Equalization may levy a tax of 35 cents on the $100 for general fund purposes, yet under the last administration the Board levied but 25 cents, and the present Board but 30 cents for the general fund. As additional expenses were created . . . to be paid out of the general fund, an additional tax, proportionate to the increase, should have been levied, but no doubt it was feared that anything like an increased taxa tion would frighten the people, and the responsible parties preferred to keep taxes down and swell the floating indebtedness by the necessarily increased issuance of 10 per-cent-bearing warrants. Such ac tion was misleading and unwise, and should be under stood by the taxpayers.27
Even though the territory was heavily in debt,
Murphy felt that the financial condition would be good if
the property was properly assessed and valued. In Arizona
Territory the assessed valuation of taxable property was
low and the rate of taxation was high. The rate varied
from county to county, but, on the average, it was $3.28
on $100. This rate was higher than the rate of interest
required on call loans in some parts of the East and tended
?6 Journals of the Sixteenth legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, p. 1^.
^'^Ibid.. p. 13. 53 to be discouraging to would-be immigrants and investors interested in the territory. Murphy stated that there was approximately $70,000,000 worth of taxable property in Arizona, of which only $28,270,466.28 was taxed. His solution was, "... that if all the property of Arizona were assessed, and at its full value, the rate of taxa tion would be as low here as in many of the most pros- 28 perous states."
If Arizona Territory was to grow economically it must be attractive to settlers and to capital investors.
Many felt that the tax system of the territory left much to be desired and a typical view was expressed editorially
in the Prescott newspaper:
The best way to develop our manifold re sources is to devise a financial system that will reduce our taxation to a point below what is considered a fair rate of interest in the East. This will do more towards inducing cap ital to invest here than statehood twice over. . . .29
While Article VI of the 1691 constitution dealt with taxation and revenue in general, sections 9, 10, and
11 were of special interest. Section 9 declared there should be a State Board of Equalization, composed of the state auditor, treasurer, and secretary of state, whose
28 Report of the Acting Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior* 1891. p. 5.
^^Editorial in The Arizona Journal-Miner /Prescott/, September 10, 1891, p. 2. 54 duties should be to assess and equalize, at their actual value, the franchises, roadways, roadbeds, rails, rolling stock, and all other property used in the operation of all railroads and other common carriers. The board was to perform other duties as prescribed by law. Section 10
empowered each county board of supervisors to act as an
equalization board for the purpose of adjusting and equal
izing property in addition to other duties. Section 11
stated that all property, unless otherwise provided for in
the constitution, should be uniformly assessed for taxa
tion. The legislature should prescribe regulations such
as to secure a just valuation for all property, real and
personal. License taxes were to be as previously provided
by law.^^
In seeking a solution to the territory's indebted
ness, William H. Barnes of Pima County argued in favor of
a sinking fund tax of one mill for territorial and one mill
for county indebtedness. William Herring of Cochise Coun
ty endorsed Barnes' statements and said that such a brave
action would undoubtedly commend the proposed constitution 51 to Congress.
^®TJ. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 20-22. 31 Nevvs item in The Arizona Daily Citizen /Tucson/, September 28, 1891, p. 1. 55 Section 6 provided for precisely the type of sink ing fund that Barnes and Herring had in mind. It permitted a tax of one mill upon each dollar's worth of taxable pro perty for the state sinking fund and a tax of one-half mill for each county for the purpose of covering state and coun ty indebtedness.^^
The achievement of the delegates in the financial provisions of the 1891 constitution were favorably re ceived by the public. The Tombstone Prospector stated:
The provision for a sinking fund, both state and county, was a commendable article to go into the constitution. For once all hands stood to gether and framed an article that is a credit to the foresight and intelligence of the people and their representatives. This sinking fund should have been anacted for the Territory years ago by legislation. . . .33
Creation of a sinking fund was not the only solution that the convention delegates had for the problem of public indebtedness. Sections 1 and 3 of Article VII limited the amount of state and county debts each to one per cent of the assessed value of the taxable property in the state or two per cent in the counties respectively. Moreover, sec tions 2 and 4 prohibited the state or counties from creating
public indebtedness in excess of taxes for the current year,
except where approved by a vote of the people. Section 5
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 20-22.
^^Editorial in The Tombstone Prospector /Arizona/, September 29, 1891, p. 2. 56 excluded public sanitation from this rule. Sections 6 and
7 described the legal manner in which public monies were to be properly spent.
The next order of business was the educational
system for the proposed new state. In 1891 the common-
school system of Arizona Territory was established and maintained by a code of law. It was under the general control of a board of education consisting of the gov
ernor, the state treasurer, and a superintendent of educa tion. It was the duty of the board to; adopt rules and regulations for the government of subordinate officers;
"elect the course of studies and the textbooks; grant ed- 35 ucational diplomas; and manage the territorial school funds.
It was this public educational system that the con vention wrote into Article VIII of the 1891 constitution.
Sections 1 and 2 providedfor the legislative establishment
and maintenance of a uniform system of free common-schools,
open to all children of Arizona, excluding the children of
Indians not taxed. Section 3 insv\ d the doctrine of the
separation of church and state as applied to the Arizona
educational system. Section 4 created a State Board of Ed-
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 22.
^Report of the Acting Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior; 1891, pp. 24-25. 57
1 1 0 ation as previously described. Section 5 provided for the election of a superintendent of public instruction, his powers, duties, and term of office to be prescribed by law. Article IX provided for the sale of common land received from the Federal government upon reaching state hood, for the benefit of Arizona's public educational system, and for general taxation for educational purposes.
Acting-Governor Murphy stated the crux of Arizona
Territory's educational problems thus:
While our educational system is admirable, its maintenance is comparatively burdensome, because no assistance is derived from the school lands on account of our Territorial condition, all expenses being b o m /iic7 by direct taxation. The sixteenth and thirty-sixm sections in every township, "granted to assist in defraying educational expenses," are of no assistance except in States. It seems unfair that Territories are not granted equal advantages with the States in this respect.
It is also important that the Territories be permitted to select good land in lieu of the six teenth and thirty-sixth sections when said sections fall upon barren and mountainous localities, other wise all desirable land will be appropriated by settlers, and the school fund will be insignificant when, after admission to statehood, the school 37 lands become available for educational purposes. . . .
The desire of the people of Arizona for public lands, largely in the hands of the Federal government and there-
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 22-24. 57 ^^ReportReport of the ActingActin Governor to the Secretary of the Interior: 1891, p. 34 58 fore not subject to territorial taxation, was one of the most powerful causes behind the desire for statehood. The
Mohave County Miner expressed this attitude as follows:
• . . Were the blessings of statehood vouch safed our beautiful land 6hd the millions of acres of land ceded the State, as in other arid states, they would cover an indebtedness of many millions, in place of thousands of dollars. . . .38
Exclusive of the Mormon question, nothing stirred
the members of the convention as much as the suffrage
issue. On September 17, 1891» a petition was presented
from Apache County, signed by a number of citizens ask
ing that no article be included in the constitution barring woman suffrage. On September 23, the convention heard
speeches in favor of womenk suffrage by the Honorable Sam P.
Webb, Mrs. Johns, Mr. Patterson, George H. Cook and E. M,
Collins. The next day Henry N. Alexander of Maricopa
County and Art McDonald of Apache County introduced peti
tions in favor of womenfe suffrage. These were referred to
a committee and on the same day the convention adopted
Article X which granted male suffrage to adult American
citizens but granted women the right to vote only in school 39 elections.
^®Editorial in The Mohave County Miner /Kingman, Arizona/, September 26, 1891, p. 2.
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 24. 59
ESmbittered by the action of the convention, ad vocates of womenfe suffrage threatened to actively oppose the constitution, and were aided by the following editorial in The Arizona Daily Citizen:
The women suffrage proposition has been knocked cold by the Convention. . . . The Citizen has no in terest in the measure beyond that of common justice to the sex. If there are among them whose who wish to vote we know of no good reason why they should not be allowed that privilege. If the Convention fails to so see it, it will later be offered as an amendment to their handiwork, for sooner or later .q the measure will be universal in the United States.
Less forward looking was an editor of The Phoenix
Gazette who approved the convention's action concerning womenJs suffrage and expressed his opinion in the emotional style not unusual at the time:
It is a pity that some women have so little appreciation of home and its pleasures that they are ever raising the cry of equal rights with men. As a general thing these women, poor things, are creatures who do not know the honor and the gentle emotions which the little mother produces in the breast of women who are raising up our future men of church and state. The less grasshopper legis lation in Arizona the better.41
In formulating Article XI the delegates considered the contest between the principal towns of the territory
^^Editorial in The Arizona Daily Citizen /Tucson/, September 24» 1891 » p. 2.
Editorial in The Phoenix Gazette /Srizona/ reprinted in The St. Johns Herald. October 1, 1891» P» 2. 60 over the location of the capital. It was first established at Prescott, then at Tucson, again at Prescott and from there removed to Phoenix in 1889, where it has remained to this day. This question over the location of the capital was a most important factor in affecting legislation. De termined to put a stop to this nonsense, the convention approved Article XI of the 1891 constitution which pro vided that the capital remain permanently in Phoenix, un til otherwise ordered by a two-thirds vote of the legis lature and' a majority of the voters at a general election.
Furthermore, "whenever the question of removal shall have been submitted to the people as provided for in the Consti tution it shall not again be submitted until after a period 4.2 of ten years."
In 1891, Phoenix, in Maricopa County, was the largest city, and quite centrally located, so the action of the con vention on the location of the capital was justified. How ever, cities in other counties felt this to be an injustice to the more distant areas 6f the territory. Citizens of
Globe in Gila County felt that:
The Convention, as far as in their power, has anchored the Arizona schooner of State in Phoenix . . . but what other counties outside of that fa-
^ Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: 1891, pp. 39-40; U. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 24. 61
vored spot will have to say, when the Constitution is submitted to a vote of the electors for adoption or rejection, is a question. Phoenix is situated in the southwestern part of the Territory and the permanent location of the capital there is an in justice to northern and central Arizona. . . .43
A Tucson paper had a similar view of the conven tion’s actions, but for different reasons:
Tucson has always suffered the very real handi cap in comparison with other cities in the Territory, of being poorly advertized and little known to the outside world. Phoenix, as the capital of the Ter ritory, is a synonym for Arizona, and appropriates more than its share of the scsinty fame which the county /of Pima/ until recently enjoyed. . . .44
If The Citizen could have had its way, the capital would have been located in the extreme southeastern portion of Arizona. The Globe paper would then have been able to thunder about a real injustice to most of Arizona.
Prior to 1891 seven militia companies were organ ized and equipped by the Federal government because no territorial law authorizing the establishment and main tenance of a militia existed. In his 1891 address to the legislature, Acting-Governor Murphy urged the creation of a territorial militia to protect Arizona from Indian up- 45 risings, riots, and other civil disorders. The conven-
^^Editorial in The Arizona Silver Belt /Slobe/, October 3, 1891, p. 2.
44rThe Arizona Daily Citizen /Tucson/, September 5, 1091,If Îp. 2. 45 Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: 1891 « pp. 36-37. 62 tion agreed with Murphy’s reasoning and prescribed such
a state militia in Article XII of the proposed constitu tion.^^
Article XIII declared that the name of the new
state should be Arizona. It defined the boundaries of
the state as those established by the act of Congress,
February 24» 1863, which created the Territory of Arizona.
It also designated the seal of the territory as that of
the state until otherwise provided by law.^^
Article XIV, entitled, "Compact with the United
States," declared, in section 1, that the State of Ari
zona was an inseparable part of the Federal Union and
the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of
the land. Section 2 assured all legal debts and liabili
ties of the territory should be assumed by the State of
Arizona. Section 3 provided that all unappropriated pub
lic lands and all Indian reservations would be free from
state taxation until such time as Congress relinquished 4.8 control over them.
Article XV of the 1891 constitution perpetuated
the existing county system which had been created by
the territorial legislature. Some months previously to
^^U. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737» Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 24.
"^"^Ibid.. p. 25.
^®Ibid., 6 3 the meeting of the convention, Acting-Governor Murphy expressed his opinion on the formation of new counties in the territory by stating that:
. . . Where subdivisions of the Territory are so large as to be unwieldy in regulating the expense of government, as. well as to operate a- gainst the convenience and economy of the people, and especially where the population and financial strength of the community is sufficient to bear division, and the creation of new county govern ments without depreciating obligations nor in any wise prejudicing public interests, division should be had. It is also believed . . . that the people of each community are the best judges of their own local needs, and should agree upon and present the plan of division for legislative action where the same is desired.49
Shortly thereafter, and in time to elect one dele gate to the constitutional convention, the territorial leg islature created the county of Coconino from Northern Yava pai County. The county seat was established at Flagstaff, a lumbering town in the heart of the Mogollon Forest and 50 located on the Atlantic and Pacific railroad.
Section 1 of Article XV declared that the several counties in the territory were to be counties of the state.
Section 2 empowered the legislature to organize new coun ties by general law,and established the minimum standards
^^Joumals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: 1891. pp. 34-35.
^^George H. Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona: 1864-1912 (Phoenix, Arizona: Manufacturing Stationers, 19^), pp. 145-150. 64 for the creation of a new county. Section 3 required each new county to assume its pro rata of the indebtedness of the county or counties from which it was formed. Sec tion 4 declared that the legislature should establish a uniform system of county government and by general law provide for township and precinct government. Sections
5-8 defined the powers and responsibilities of the follow ing elected officials: board of supervisors, sheriff, coun ty treasurer, probate judge, and county clerk.
Article XVI dealt with state institutions. Section
1 enabled the legislature to establish and maintain such public institutions as the general welfare might require.
Section 2 declared all property and institutions of the territory should become the property and institutions of 52 the State of Arizona upon the adoption of the constitution.
To induce the construction of badly needed north and south railway lines, the sixteenth territorial legislature passed, in March, 1891» a very liberal act exempting rail roads, constructed under its provisions, from taxation for twenty years. The act stated that a railroad company must file a declaration of intention to build the railroad with
51 XT. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737» Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 25-26.
^^Ibid.. p. 26. 65 the secretary of the territory within six months after passage of the law. Construction of the railroad must begin within six months of the declaration of intention, and progress faster than fifty miles a year until its completion. Under these provisions a branch line of approximately 110 miles was built from Ash Fork, on the line of the Atlantic and Pacific railroad, via Prescott to Phoenix.
The growing antagonism in the territory between private interests and railroad corporations was next brought before the convention for consideration. Acting-
Governor Murphy had previously given his views on this controversy:
There seems to be an unjust prejudice growing in some localities against railway corporations as such, based upon, in many cases, imaginary imposi tions; yet such companies should always be willing to submit to fair restrictions of law. It is fre quently charged that a continual war exists, offen sive and defensive, between the people and the cor porations, and it is claimed that this conflict is the necessary result of extremists on both sides of the controversy. It is alleged that the railway corporations interfere with elections and endeavor to corrupt legislation in order to promote their private interests, and that an expensive lobby is always maintained at the seat of government to shape legislation favorable to the corporations. . . . On the other hand the railway compamies deny that
55 Report of the Acting Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior: 1891. pp. 11-12, and 1892. pp, 18-20. 66
they encourage corrupt influences and claim that they only employ legitimate methods in protecting their just rights when unjustly assailed. . . . /This/ controversy, alike demoralizing to good gov ernment and public welfare, continually exists in the Territory and should be terminated. I believe that wise and conservative legislation will remove the evil, or at least destroy its influence.54
The railroad controversy had repercussions in the convention in the form of proposed amendments. The first forbade the legislature the granting of subsidies to rail roads and other enterprises. William H. Barnes of Pima
County vigorously opposed this amendment because he be lieved railroads were the key to the economic growth of
Arizona. The matter was laid aside for further discus sion and a second amendment declaring railway and tele graph companies to be public carriers was defeated after 55 much conflicting debate.
As finally adopted by the convention. Article XVII granted legislative authority for the regulation of cor porations. Key sections were 2-4, 7 and 10. Section 2 empowered the legislature to proscribe by general law the organization of all corporations, private, public, and municipal. Section 3 declared that the legislature should provide by law the method whereby the courts might revoke or annul any incorporation whenever it proved injurious to the citizens of the state. Section 4 provided that any
^ % e w 8 item in The Arizona Republican /Phoenix/, September 18, 1891, p. 1. 67 association organized for the purpose, should have the
right to construct and operate railroads, telegraph lines,
or canals for carrying water between any designated points within the state. Section 7 declared all fictitious in
creases of capital stock or indebtedness of corporations
should be void. Section 10 stated that corporations
should always be subject to regulation by the state.
A major problem in the American West has long been the scarcity of water. Since agriculture was the means of livelihood of most early settlers the water problem was 57 of crucial concern to the convention. The Arizona Sen tinel expressed this view in the following statement:
The one grand question, paramount to all others, is that of Irrigation. If all of the valleys, fine mesas, and hill sides could be supplied with water today, the Territory would have 500,000 inhabitants inside of two years. . . .58
The Ari zona Republican hoped that the members of
the convention would not try to have provisions inserted
in the constitution which would affect the vested water
rights of corporations or individuals. If this occurred,
it stated, "... such provisions will cause unnecessary
S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 26-27.
^^News item in The Arizona Daily Star /Tucson/, September 10, 1891, p. 2.
^^Editorial in The Arizona Sentinel /Yuma/, September 12, 1891, p. 2. 68 and expensive litigations and retard the development 5Q of the resources of the Territory, . . . "
On September 29, 1891, delegate George W. Cheyney of Cochise County introduced a substitute article which would grant to the state the waters of all natural lakes and streams capable of navigation or irrigation. This article was a clear repudiation of the common law doc trine of riparian rights, or the rights of a person own ing land containing or bordering on a watercourse or other body of water. The convention defeated Cheyney*s article but adopted his ideas in sections 1 and 2 of Ar ticle XVIII concerning water and water rights.
Section 3 declared that the right of the people to appropriate and to use the unappropriated waters of the state for beneficial purposes should never be denied; prior appropriation insured prior right. Section 6 granted the legislature regulatory powers over the mode and matter of all water rights granted in Article XVIII.
Section 7 empowered the legislature to authorize the organization of irrigation districts, but limited the
^^Editorial in The Ari zona Republican /Phoenix/, September 11, 1891, p. 2.
Journals of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Arizona: 1891. pp. 47-48. 69 taxing power of such districts to beneficiaries of said districts.
The convention's major act of conservation con cerned Arizona's vast forests. Article XIX declared that the legislature should enact laws to preserve the forests on the lands of the state, and upon any part of the public domain, the control of which might be con ferred by Congress upon the State of Arizona.
In his 1891 Report to the Secretary of the In terior, Acting-Governor Nathan 0. Murphy commented on labor conditions in Arizona Territory:
This question has not yet required atten tion in this Territory as bearing upon the pub lic welfare and the conduct of affairs. So far there have been no strikes nor organized move ments as against capital. The supply and de mand are fairly equalized, wages satisfactory, and labor contented.63
Such favorable economic conditions may explain the convention's lack of action in this critical area of human relations. All that Article XX stated was that eight hours should constitute a day's labor on all
fi 1 U. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 27. ^^Ibid.
^^Report of the Acting Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior, p. 34. 70
state works.
Article XXI, the amendment clause in the 1891 constitution, provided, in sections 1 and 2, that amend ments to the constitution might he proposed by either branch of the legislature. Upon ratification by a majority of both houses of the legislature and of the electorate at the next general election, the amendments became part of the constitution. Sections 3 and 4 enabled the legislature to call a convention to amend or revise the constitution,
subject to ratification by the electorate at the next gen- 65 eral election.
A very stormy issue was the question of eligibility
of the convention delegates to public office. On Septem ber 30, 1891 » William A. Hartt of Pima County submitted the following article to the convention*
No member of this constitutional convention shall, for the period of two years after the adoption of the State Constitution, by Congress, be eligible to any public office of emolument which is elective by the people or the Legisla ture. 66
^^U. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737, Constitution for the State of Arizona, p. 27.
^^Ibid.. pp. 27-28. 66 Journals of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Arizona* 1891, pp. 49-50. 71 The convention indefinitely postponed the article by a vote of fourteen to four. At one time the members of the convention went so far as to organize campaigns for the offices of governor and United States Senator, 67 but the convention later dropped the idea.
Article XXII was a schedule for the smooth tran sition from territorial to state government. Section 7 provided that the constitution should be submitted for adoption or rejection by the electorate on the first
Tuesday in December, 1891. Sections 9-18 prescribed the mode of election of all public officials under the new constitution.^® This concluded the writing of the
1891 constitution which was signed by all twenty-one dele- 69 gates to the convention.
The press throughout the territory approved the convention's actions in holding a separate election for the ratification or rejection of the proposed constitu tion."^® It was felt that this would eliminate party
®"^Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona, pp. 156-157.
^®U. S. House of Representatives, Report No. 737 Constitution for the State of Arizona, pp. 28-30.
Journals for the Constitution of the State of Arizona: 1891. p. 5^.
"^®Editorial in The Ari zona Daily Star /Tucson/, September 22, 1891, p. 2. 72
strife which ", , . should he avoided above all other 71 issues,"
On October 19» 1891» the necessary proclamation
calling for a special election on December 1, 1891 was 7 2 issued by the acting-governor. The results of the voting showed that the proposed Arizona Constitution of
1891 was overwhelmingly adopted by a majority of 5»440 to 2,280, thus proving that Arizonana did not divide 73 along party lines concerning statehood.
The editor of The Arizona Daily Star commented
on the election and, somewhat philosophically, expressed the predominate view:
The constitutional election has been held. . . The battle for its adoption was short and decisive. The issue was not a party question, it was not a political issue but one simply of home rule, a question of self government in which all our people are interested. Those men who fought against have made their record; those who struggled for its adoption have made their record; the future will determine the result.74
Editorial in The Arizona Republican ^Phoenix/» September 19» 1891 » p. 2.
^^News item in The Tombstone Prospector /Zrlzona/, November 2, 1891, p. 1.
^^Eelley, Legislative History of Arizona, p. 156.
^^Editorial in The Arizona Daily Star ^Tucson/» December 2, 1891» p. 2. 73 As the year 1891 drew to a close, the delegates
to the constitutional convention saw their work com-
'pleted and accepted.by the people of Arizona Territory.
Their decisive vote in favor of the constitution ex
pressed their ardent desire for statehood. Arizona had
declared herself ready to make her first bid to join the
Union. Whether she was accepted or not depended on the
United States Congress, and how a new state, predominately
Democratic, would fit into the picture of national politics
in 1892. CHAPTER IV
ARIZONA'S DRIVE FOR STATEHOOD
I. THE FIRST BID FOR STATEHOOD
Before examining the course of Arizona's first hid for statehood in 1892, a review of national party politics
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century is de
sirable in order to better understand the political cli mate of the time.
From 1876 to 1896 the Republican and Democratic
Parties were of almost equal strength, with the former more
successful in Presidential elections and in controlling the
Senate, and the latter more successful in controlling the
House of Representatives. Rutherford B. Hayes won the dis
puted election of 1876 by only one electoral vote, even though Samuel J. Tilden had 4,300,000 popular votes to
Hayes' 4,036,298. James A. Garfield's 1880 popular vote plurality was only some 10,000 more than Winfield S. Han
cock's out of nine million votes cast for the major party nominees. A difference of some 23,000 votes, out of al most 10 million cast, separated Grover Cleveland and James
G. Blaine in 1884, and Cleveland's win in the electoral
college came by virtue of his carrying New York by a plu
rality of slightly over 1,000 votes. In 1888, Benjamin
Harrison was elected even though Cleveland received ap- 75 proximately 100,000 more popular votes out of eleven mil lion major party votes cast. In the nine Congresses from
1877 through 1895 Democrats organized the House seven times and the Senate only twice.^
To achieve party dominance in Congress, the Republi can Fiftieth Congress in 1889 admitted six new states—
Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington and 2 Montana— most of which were considered safely Republican.
Having achieved this political triumph, the Republican
Party in Congress was in no mood to admit new Democratic states to the Union and thereby upset its favorable balance of political power.^ Against this background Arizona first sought admission to the Union under the proposed Constitu tion of 1891.
On March 14, 1892 Arizona's Territorial Delegate
Marcus A. Smith, who had represented Cochise County at the constitutional convention of 1891, introduced House Resolu tion 7204, a bill to provide for the admission of the State of Arizona into the Union, effective January 1, 1893* On
^Ivan Hinderaker, Party Politics (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1956), pp. 301-302. 9 James A. Barnes, John C. Carlisle» Financial Statesmen (New York: Dodd, M##de, & Company, 1931), P* 184*
^United States Congress, The Congressional Record. 51st Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1890), XXI, pp. 2944-48. 76
March 16, 1892 the House Conmiittee on Territories reported
H. R, 7204 back to the House of Representatives. On June
6, 1892 the House debated the issue at considerable length and the partisan nature of it rapidly became apparent.^
Representative George D. Perkins, Republican from
Iowa, made the following remarks against the admission of
Arizona:
. . . I think it is pretty well evidenced here today that /^he admission of Arizona and New Mexico/ is made a political question. My judgement is thaï these questions of the magnitude involved in these bills should be considered impartially and from the standpoint of the best judgement that we can bring to bear. Certainly there is no opportunity here for any such consideration today.5
The House of Representatives passed H. R. 7204 by a lopsided vote of 173 yeas to 13 nays amidst Democratic applause. On June 8 the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Territories, where it was quietly put to death.^
The Washington Post summed up the issue when it de clared that:
The population of Arizona is greater than that of Nevada and nearly As large as that of Wyoming, but two more Democratic Senators and three additional
^The Congres si onal Record. 52nd Congress, 2nd Session, XXIII, pp. 2071-2121, 5088-89.
^Ibid.. p. 5089.
^Ibid.. pp. 5090, 5171-72. 77 Democratic votes in the electoral college are a bigger lift than the Democrats can hope to get from a Republican Senate on the eve of a Presi dential election. The times are not just now pro- _ pitious for adding Democratic stars to the old flag. '
Thus partisan politics blocked Arizona’s first major bid for statehood under the Proposed Constitution of 1891.
Her second and last bid under this constitution came in the midst of the great national debate over free silver. There fore before tracing the development of the second attempt the author will review the great free silver crusade of the latter nineteenth oentury.
II. THE FREE SILVER CRUSADE
By the coinage acts of 1834 and 1837 the Federal government had set the mint ratio for silver and gold at approximately 16 to 1, a ratio which so undervalued silver that it was not generally presented for coinage and the silver dollar passed out of existence. In the course of monetary legislation Congress dropped the coinage of silver Q almost without comment in 1873.
But in the next year or two unexpected events changed the world position of silver. Foreign countries limited or
"^Editorial in The Washington Post reprinted in The St. John’s Herald /Arizona/, September 10, 1891, p. 2. Q Edward C. Kirkland, A History of American Economic Life (New York: Applet on-Century-Orofts, Inc., 1951 ), P* 434. 78
abandoned their silver currency. In the American West
new mines were opened and poured a flood of silver into
the channels of trade. The price of silver naturally fell,
and when the mine owners looked to the government as a pur
chaser they discovered the demonetization. The Act of 1873
was converted into the "crime of 1873.” An agitation for
the recoinage of silver sprang up. In 1878 Congress passed
the Bland-Allison Act. It provided for the purchase and
coinage toy the government of from two to four million dollars worth of silver money. The alternative to this act in the
mind of Representative Richard P. Bland of Missouri was,
"issuing paper money enough to stuff down the toond-holders’
throats until they are sick." In the administration of the
measure the caution of gold bugs prevailed. The Treasury
purchased the minimum amount. The silver dollars which
were coined usually stayed in the vaults ; silver certifi
cates, representing these deposits, were in circulation.
Certificates, silver dollars, legal tenders, all were in- q terchangeable on demand into gold.
The six new states— Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Washington, and Montana— which had entered
the Union in 1889, were earnest supporters of Western
politics. Their Representatives were all silver men,
^Ibid. 79 thus giving the advocates of free silver the balance of political power in the Senate.
By 1890 the silver forces in Congress had won a par tial victory in the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. The need which explained its passage was not the hardships of debtor farmers and exploited workers but the need of the Republi can leadership to secure the passage of a protective tariff by conciliating Senators from the silver producing states.
The new statute provided for the purchase of 4,500,000 ounces of silver per month at the market price. Since this amount was practically the total output of the silver mines of the country, the act greatly increased the currency.
Other provisions of the act apparently intended that silver 11 Treasury notes might be redeemed in gold.
The test of whether the nation could remain on the gold standard came two years later, grew sharper during the panic of 1893 and was not eased until 1896. Since govern ment revenues were inadequate, the Treasury had to meet government bills in part with gold. Since individuals and banks, their confidence in the currency weakened, sought gold or needed it to meet international balances, a situa-
^^Bames, John G. Carlisle: Financial Statesmeoa.. p. 184. 11 Kirkland, A History of American Economic life, pp. 435-37. 80 tion due in part to the same insecurity, greenbacks and
Treasury notes were presented to the Treasury for redemp tion. In these critical years the gold reserve, which practice had set at 100 million dollars, slipped again 12 and again below that figure.
To stay the calamity, President Grover Cleveland called for a special session of Congress on August 7, 1893 to repeal the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890. On
August 28, 1893 the House of Representatives passed the repeal bill by a vote of 240 to 110. There was a long and violent struggle in the Senate which was in the hands of the silverite forces. During a filibuster against the re peal bill, a split occured within the silver ranks. The
Democratic silver Senators wished to enlarge the circulat ing medium by increasing the amount of coinage, and they did not feel the same interest in the mere stacking of silver bullion in the Federal Treasury that possessed the
Republican silverites. When these two groups separated on the question of policy, the silverite forces recognized the hopelessness of preventing a vote on the repeal bill. On
October 30, 1893 the Senate passed the bill, whereupon 13 President Cleveland signed it into law two days later.
^^Ibid.. p. 437. ^^Henry James Ford, The Cleveland Era* A Chronicle of the New Order in Politics (flew Haven* TaTe University Press, 1 9 1 9 ), pp. 178-81. 81
The President won a great legislative victory but destroyed the effectiveness of the Democratic Party in Congress for the duration of his administration.^^
III. ARIZONA’S SECOND BID FOR STATEHOOD
On September 21, 1893 Arizona's perennial Delegate to Congress, Marcus A. Smith, introduced House Resolution
3322, a bill to provide for the admission of Arizona into the Union. It was referred to the House Committee on Ter ritories . H. R. 4393, a similar bill to H. R. 7204 which was passed by the House during the previous Congress, was reported as a substitute for H. R. 3322 on November 3, 1893<
The following December 15 the House passed H. R. 4393 by a vote of 187 to 62. Three days later H. R. 4393 was re ferred to the Senate Committee on Territories where it re mained until reported back to the Senate with amendments
oh August 4, 1894. Here the bill died without ever coming 16 to a vote on the Senate floor.
Since the Cleveland administration had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress it would seem that the administration would have forced the Senate to pass
H. R. 4393, and thus bring a new Democratic state into
W. Taussig, The Silver Situation in the United States (3rd revised edition. New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 189877 p. 140. ^^The Congressional Record. 53rd Congress, XXV, pp 1669, 3123; Ibid.. XXVI, pp. 248, 258-67, 319, 8141. 82 the Union which would furnish three more Democratic votes in the next Presidential election. Why this was not the case is related to Arizona’s stand on the free silver issue.
There can he little doubt that Arizona was a staunch free silverite territory. Arizona silver mining interests were powerful enough to force the constitutional convention of 1891 to insert section 16 into the bill of rights de claring gold and silver on an equal footing as legal tender 1 6 for all debts and obligations contracted within Arizona.
The Federal Constitution in Article I, Section 10, prohibits any state from passing laws impairing the obligation of con tracts. Remarkable indeed, was the power of Arizona silver interests that they could compel a state constitutional con vention to defy the supreme law of the land I
One of the authors of section 16 was Arizona's Ter ritorial Delegate Marcus A. Smith, who made clear his po sition on free silver to the House of Representatives on
March 24-, 1892 when he stated, "I favor the reopening of our mints to the free coinage of silver and gold at a fixed ratio.
The result of Smith’s actions was to thrust the
News item in The Arizona Republican ^Phoenix/, September 28, 1891, p. 1. 17 The Congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 2nd Session, XXIII, Appendix, pp. 38. Filmed as received without page(s) ^ ^
UNIVERSITY MICROPims, INC. 84
IV. ARIZONA'S SUCCESSPUIj DRIVE FOR STATEHOOD
During the remaining six years of the 1890 ' s
Arizona statehood bills were intermittently introduced
in Congress, but nothing resulted from these persistent
efforts.
The Republican Party platform in 1900 included a plank favoring statehood for Arizona, New Mexico eind Ok
lahoma. Despite a visit to Arizona by President William
McKinley in 1901, no action was taken. The unexpected
ascendency of Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency upon
McKinley's assassination revived hope among Arizonana.
After all. Colonel Roosevelt had been the head of the
famous Rough Riders to which Arizona had contributed so many outstanding soldiers. Yet many Congressmen were op
posed to what President Benjamin Harrison had termed "the 20 free coinage of Western Senators."
Senator Matthew S. Quay of Pennsylvania led the
fight for Arizona statehood, while Senator Albert J.
Beveridge of Pennsylvania headed the opposition. Despite
the powerful press support of William Randolph Hearst,
Prank 0, Lockwood, Pioneer Days in Arizona* From the Spanish Occupation to Statehood (New York* The MacMillan Company, 1932), p. 369.
^^Edward H. Peplow, History of Arizona (New York* Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1958), II, p. 11. 85 supporters of statehood were unable to obtain favorable 21 Senate action.
In 1 9 0 4 a proposal was made in Congress that New
Mexico and Arizona be admitted as one state. Throughout
Arizona reaction against the proposed jointure was imme diate and violent which served to unite the large majority of Arizonans into a much more cohesive and effective force for statehood. Due to an amendment written by Arizona's
Delegate Marcus A. Smith, and sponsored by Senator Joseph
B. Poraker of Ohio, each territory was permitted to vote 22 separately on the bill. Rejection by either would block the measure. In November, 1906 the voting in New Mexico counted 26,195 for union and 14,735 against, a majority somewhat smaller than generally expected. In Arizona the vote produced 16,265 against and only 3,141 for joint 23 statehood, a resounding defeat of the measure.
Both major parties wrote planks into their 1908 platforms favoring separate statehood for both Arizona and
New Mexico. In 1910 Congress passed an enabling act per mitting Arizona to hold a constitutional convention in preparation for statehood. President William Howard Taft
^^Ibid.. II, pp. 11-12. 22 Rufus K, Wyllys, Arizona; The History of a Frontier State (Phoenix, Arizona; Hobson & Herr, 1950), pp. 299-300; George H. Kelley, Legislative History of Arizona. 1864-1912 (Phoenix; Manufacturing Stationers, Inc., 192 6 ), p. 288.
^^Peplow, History of Arizona. II, pp. 15-16. 86 signed the bill into law on Jime 20, 1910. Arizona's
Territorial Governor Richard E. Sloan proclaimed Septem ber 12, 1910 as election day. Election returns proved an overwhelming victory for the Democratic Party, forty- one of the fifty-two delegates elected being Democrats.
Within a month the convention had completed its work on
December 9, 1910.
Principal features of the constitution of 1910 in clude its brief preamble, which mentions Almighty God and defines Arizona's boundaries as the United States-Mexican border on the south, and the state borders of New Mexico,
Colorado, Utah, Nevada and California on the east, north, 25 and west.
The Arizona constitution acknowledges the Federal
Constitution as the supreme law of the land and recognizes the fundamental precepts of the protection of life, liberty, property, free speech, and freedom of the press. It prohib its laws granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise, or immunity. It outlaws religious qualifications and the pay ment of public moneys to denominational institutions. Al though the Arizona constitution omits the usual suspension
^^Ibid.. pp. 16-22.
^^Wesley Bolin, Secretary of State, State of Ariz ona, compiler and issuer. Constitution of Arizona. 1910 (Printed, 1962), p. 2. 87 of the right of habeas corpus in times of riot or rebellion,
it makes the military power of the state strictly subordi nate to the civil power. It prohibits private armies of 26 any kind.
The constitution of 1910 establishes the three co
ordinate branches of government— executive, legislative,
and judicial.
Although the legislature was originally organized
into a senate of nineteen members and a house of repre
sentatives of twenty-five members, a provision has since been amended to give each of the fourteen counties two
senators and a number of representatives based on popula- pQ tion. The minimum age for legislators is twenty-five years, three of which must have been resident in the county
of election. Bach legislator is elected for a two year
term and he cannot be a state or federal office-holder 29 while also an elected representative of the people.
Among the controversial provisions of tne consti
tution were the initiative and referendum. The initiative
provides that ten percent of the electors in the state may
^^Ibid.. p. 2-5.
^"^Ibid.. p. 5. pO Peplow, History of Arizona, II, p. 23. ^^Bolin, Constitution of Arizona, pp. 8-13. 88
propose a measure and fifteen pen cent may propose an
amendment to the constitution. The referendum enables a minimum of five per cent of the electors to demand that
any measure passed by the legislature be submitted to 30 the voters for their approved or rejection.
The governor, secretary of state, state auditor,
state treasurer attorney general and superintendent of
public instruction are elected for two year terms of
office. The above named officials, except the state treas urer, can succeed themselves in office. All other executive
offices are to be prescribed by law. The governor must
approve all acts of the legislature before they become law.
The legislature must have a two-thirds majority in both
houses to over-ride his veto of any bill. The governor 31 has no power to veto initiative or referendum proposals.-^
The Arizona constitution decentralizes the state
government by withholding much authority from the governor
and placing it in the hands of boards, commissions and in
dependent officials.^^
One such body is the Arizona Corporation Commission.
^^Peplow, History of Arizona, II, p. 22; Bolin, Constitution of Arizona.pp. ^-8.
^^Ibid.. pp. 13-15. 32 Richard E. Sloan, Memories of an Arizona Judge (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1932), pp. 238-239. 89
Records of all public service corporations, private corpor ations, which sell stock to the public, and banks are sub ject to inspection by the commission., It has power to pre scribe classifications, rates, forms of contract, and sys tems of accounting. All corporations doing business in the state are required to pay an annual fee; monopolies and trusts are outlawed; and public service corporations are granted the right of imminent domain.
The five Arizona supreme court justices are elected for staggered six year terms of office. The court has ad ministrative supervision of all superior courts and other inferior courts which the legislature may create by law.
The supreme court has original jurisdiction of habeas cor pus, quo warranto, mandamus, injunction, and other extra ordinary writs to state officers. It also has original and exclusive jurisdiction in all boundary disputes between counties and appellate jurisdiction in all other cases.
Superior court justices are elected for four year terms of office and the governor has power to fill all judicial va cancies until the election of a successor.
James H. Mo Glint ock, Arizona: The Youngest State (Chicago: The S. J. Clark Publishing Compai^, 1916), II, p. 368.
^^Ibid.. pp. 15-20. 90
The secret ballot was guaranteed in the 1910 con stitution and the suffrage was extended to all citizens twenty-one years of age or older with at least one year of residence in Arizona, Thus the women at last received the privilege of voting. Bond issues and special assess ments were required to be submitted to the vote of quali fied electors. Provisions were made for a law requiring the publicizing of all campaign contributions and for a direct primary election law.
The recall, the most controversial provision of the
1910 constitution, states that every public officer is sub ject to recall from office upon the filing of a petition signed by twenty-five per cent of the number of voters participating in the last preceding election. The only limiting provision is that a recall petition may not be circulated against an officer, legislators excepted, un til he has been in office at least six months.
The 1910 constitution provides for the usual im peachment procedures of a state government. By a simple majority vote the house of representatives can impeach any public official. The senate must convict the man by a two-thirds majority. The chief justice of the supreme
^^Peplow, History of Arizona, II, p. 23.
^^Ibid.. pp. 23-24. 91 court shall preside over any impeachment trial by the 37 senate, except his own trial.
All lands expressly transferred and confirmed to the state by the provisions of the Enabling Act approved
June 20, 1910, and all lands acquired by the Territory of
Arizona, are to be held in trust by the State of Arizona until sold at public auction. No land may be sold for less than three dollars per acre, and no irrigable land for less than twenty-five dollars per acre. All money thus acquired must be spent as provided by law.^®
Tax exemption status is granted to all governmental property and to educational, charitable, and religious associations. A limit is placed on the legal indebtedness 3Q of counties, cities, and school districts.^
The Arizona legislature is required to maintain a uniform system of public education. The State Board of
Education, consisting of the governor, superintendent of public instruction, educators, and other officials, is empowered to supervise the public school system. Schools are required to be maintained at least six months each year, and certain lands are set aside to be held in trust for the benefit of schools.
37 ^ Bolin, Constitution of Arizona, p. 24.
^^Ibid.. pp. 28-31. 3Q ^Peplow, History of Arizona, p. 23.
^^Bolin, Constitution of Arizona, pp. 31-32. 92
Subject to change by law the constitution of 1910 creates the following county officials: sheriff, recorder, treasurer, school superintendent, county attorney, assessor, county superintendent of roads, surveyor, and three super visors* All officials are elected for a two year term of office. The le-^islature is also required to provide for the incorporation and organization of cities and towns by general law only.^^
The Arizona constitution requires the organization and maintenance of a state militia that shall conform to the regulations applicable to the United States Army; the prohibition of the common law doctrine of riparian water rights within the state; the establishment of the eight hour day for all state, county and municipal employees and the forbiddance of child labor under fourteen years of age. Included is also the requirement that the legislature enact a Workman’s Compensation Law, an Employer's Liability
Law, and the office of state mine inspector.
The Arizona constitution guarantees religious free dom while prohibiting polygamous marriages. It also re nounces any state claims on Indian land under the juris diction of the United States, until such time as Congress
"^""ibid.. pp. 32-35.
"^^Ibid.. pp. 41-43. 93 shall relinquish its control. All debts, liabilities and laws of the Territory of Arizona are declared valid upon the arrival of statehood. All state officials are required to read, write, speak and understand the English language
According to contemporary critical opinion, the
Arizona constitution of 1910 was an excellent constitution.
It had nearly all the modem and progressive features of
American constitutional law and practice included in its provisions. This was especially true of the initiative, referendum and recall provisions. Many delegates feared that the inclusion of these provisions would incur Presi dent Taft’s veto of the statehood bill.^^
According to Donald Robinson Van Petten, a modem
Arizona historian, a constitution is the fundamental law of the state which establishes the basic form of govern ment and also the basic limitations on freedom. One would expect a state constitution to be relatively brief. The
United States Constitution contains approximately 6000 words, the Arizona constitution contains over 25,000 words 45 and more are added every two years.
^^Ibid., pp. 44-45.
^^Wyllys, Arizona: The History of a Frontier State, pp. 307-308.
^^Donald Robinson Van Petten, The Constitution and Government of Arizona (Phoenix, Arizona: Sun Country Pub lishing Company, c. 1956), p. 39. 94
The extreme length of the 1910 constitution, states
Van Petten, was because the people had begun to distrust their legislatures and so froze statutes into their con stitution, thus locking them against any direct action of the legislature. President Taft, himself, had warned the
Arizona delegates by saying, "Make your constitution as progressive as you wish but do not legislate therein.
A student of government should find the Arizona constitution very rewarding because in it, writes Van
Petten, are*
. . . Besides the usual articles on the legis lative, executive and judicial . . . provisions for suffrage and elections; on public debt revenue and taxation; on state and school lands; on education; on county and municipal government ; on business organizations; on labor, water ri^ts, militia, and mines. There is a Bill of Rights containing thirty- four sections. One may well wonder, until he reads it, what is contained there since the Bill of Ri^ts in the United States constitution is so much shorter.
On February 9, 1911, the constitution was approved by a vote of 12,187 for and 3,302 against ratification.
Early in August, 1911 Congress passed a joint resolution admitting Arizona and New Mexico as states of the Union.
As was expected by many. President Taft vetoed the measure because he believed the recall provision of the Arizona
^^Ibid., pv 40. ^^Ibid.. pp. 41-42, 95 constitution threatened the integrity and independence of the state judiciary. Within a week Congress passed another
joint resolution which excluded judges from the recall pro vision and,on August 21, 1911, President Taft signed the amended joint resolution into law.'^ At the general election, held on December 12, 1911, the electorate approved the re call amendment to their constitution and gave the Democratic candidates for office a landslide vote. George W. P. Hunt was elected governor, Sydney Osborn, secretary of state,
Marcus A. Smith and Henry P. Ashurst were elected United
States Senators and Carl Hayden was elected to the House of
Representatives.^®
A political struggle of one-half century came to an
end and a dream came true when, on February 14, 1912 at ten A. M., President Taft signed the proclamation admitting 49 Arizona to the Union as the forty-eighth state.
"^®Ibid.. pp. 32, 38-39.
^^Ibid., pp. -38-39* Filmed as received without page(s)______V t
UNIVERSITY M r C R O P H M S , INC. 97 constitution by a vote of 5»440 to 2,280. One territorial newspaper printed an emphatic statement regarding the sig nificance of the election:
. . . It does not mean simply statehood from a patriotic standpoint. . . . It means that the people are tired of a form of government over which they have no control; it means that our judges shall he responsible to the people and not to a power which the people have no say in elect ing; it means that Arizona is tired of being the Siberia of political America where broken down politicians are sent to be fed by her people. . . . 1
The two efforts to achieve statehood, in 1892 and
1893, under the 1891 constitution failed. The politicians in Washington alleged that the liberal provisions in the constitution such as, state aid to railroads, the attempt to establish waterways as state property, and the use of silver as legal tender to pay state debts, were not ac ceptable. moreover, they stated that Arizona Territory 2 was "politically immature."
Rather than the territory's "political immaturity", the failures were more basically due to the national polit ical and economic conditions of the late nineteenth cen tury. A review of the national political climate of the
^Editorial in The Tombstone Prospector ^Srizona/» December 2, 1891, p- 2. o Donald Robinson Van Petten, The Constitution and Government of Arizona (Phoenix: Sun Country Publishing Company, c. 195^)» p. 14. 98 of the 1890's proves that the first failure was not as much the fault of the constitution as it was due to the fact that the Senate was strongly Republican and wanted no more Democratic votes in Congress at that particular time.
The second defeat was because of Arizona's stand on free silver and the proposition written into the con stitution thereon. The failure of the second Cleveland administration to force the Arizona Statehood Bill through
Congress indicated how fatal the free silver issue was to the unity and ultimate supremacy of the Democratic Party in the mid 1890's.
Between 1894 and 1908 various efforts to gain statehood for Arizona failed because of unfavorable polit ical and economic circumstances which were nation-wide.
The attempt in 1904 of national politicians to join
Arizona and New Mexico into one state in order to get them admitted to the Union failed because the people of
Arizona united in the effort to oppose the move.
The last, and successful,bid for statehood came under the new constitution written in 1910. This was a propitious time in national politics and social trends.
Progressive reform was the cry and the 1910 constitu tion of Arizona was a model of progressivism. Arizona 99 had become aware of growing labor problems and had written favorable labor provisions into the constitution. This attracted friends in Eastern labor groups who had some in fluence in Washington. Statehood for Arizona and New Mex ico became one of the big issues in the first session of the sixty-second Congress. In the Arizona constitution the chief controversy was over the recall of elected of ficers. The conservatives were against the provision but the progressives, friends of the working man, made this, along with the initiative and referendum, their symbol of democracy and worked long and hard for the acceptance of the Arizona constitution.
The Democratic progressives were aided by the fact that certain Republicans were also for "the promotion of popular government and progressive legislation." Many felt that popular government and progressive legislation had been ham-strung by the "special interests.
Popular government is what the citizens of Arizona had wanted for decades, and it was finally granted them on the wave of the national progressive reform which was sweeping the country. Arizona’s long struggle for state hood thus came to an end.
^Paul Gr. Hubbard, "A Toledo Trade Union and the Arizona Constitution," The Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXVII (April, 1958), p. 111.
"^Ibid.. p. 119. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
Government Documents: United States
Congressional Globe. 37th Congress, 2nd and 3rd sessions. Microfilm, Mattews Library, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Reports of the Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior; 1864-1912. 48 void. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1864-1912.
United States Bureau of the Census. Historical Abstract of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960. 800 pp.
Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910. Population. Vol. II. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1913.
United States Congress. The Congressional Record. 51st through 55th Congresses. Vols. XXI-XXXI. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891-1897.
House of Representatives, 51st Congress, 2nd Session. House Document No. 607. Biographical Directory of the American Congress: 1774-1949. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950.
House of Representatives, 52nd Congress, 1st Session. House Report No. 737. Constitution for The State of Arizona, as Adopted by the Constitutional Convention Friday, October 2, 1891. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1893.
Government Documents: Arizona
Acts, Resolutions & Memorials of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. Prescott, Arizona: Courier Book & Job Printing Establishment, 1889.
Acts, Resolutions & Memorials of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona! Presclotty Arizona: Courier Book & Job Printing Establishment, 1891. 101
Arizona Revised Statutes, Annotated; 1956. 20 vols. St. Paul; West Publishing Company, 1956.
Bolin, Wesley, Secretary of State, State of Arizona, Compiler and Issuer. Constitution of Arizona (1910). Printed 1962. 50 pp.
The Constitution and Schedules of the Territory of Arizona and the Pro- ceedings of the Convention Held in Tucson. Tucson^ New Mexico: J. Howard Well, Publisher, 1860. 23 pp.
The Constitution for the State of Arizona as Adopted by The Constitutional Convention. Friday, October 2, 189Ï1 And An Address to the People of the Territory. Phoenix, Arizona; Herald Printers, 1891. 28 pp.
Journals of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Arizona: 1891. Phoenix, Arizona; Herald Printers, 1891. 59 pp.
Journals of the First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: 1864. Prescott, Arizona: Office of The Arizona Miner, 1865.
Journals of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: 1889. Prescott, Arizona: Courier Book & Job Printing Establishment, 1889.
Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona: 1891. Phoenix, Arizona; Herald Printers, 1891.
Newspapers
The Arizona Daily Citizen [Tucson], March, 1879-December, 1891.
The Arizona Daily Star [Tucson], January, 1879-March, 1897.
The Arizona Gazette [Phoenix], December, 1891-April, 1899.
The Arizona Journal-Miner [Prescott], March, 1864-December, 1912.
The Arizona Republican [Phoenix], May, 1890-December, 1900.
The Arizona Sentinel [Yuma], March, 1872-December, 1891.
The Arizona Silver Belt [Globe], May, 1878-February, 1910.
The Graham County Bulletin [Globe, Arizona], August 9, 1895.
The Mohave County Miner [Kingman, Arizona], November, 1882-October, 1903.
The Nogales Oasis [Arizona], June 1, 1893.
The Prescott Courier [Arizona], June 24, 1882. 102
The Prescott Enterprise [Arizona], June 12, 1878.
The St. Johns Herald [Arizona], July, 1885-August, 1897.
The Tempe News [Arizona], October, 1894.
The Tombstone Prospector [Arizona], March, 1887-December, 1891.
The Weekly Arizona Republican [Phoenix], August, 1878-December, 1899.
SECONDARY WORKS
Books Concerning Arizona
AUiot, Hector. Bibliography of Arizona. Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum, 1914. 431 pp.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. History of Arizona and New Mexico: 1530-1888, Volume XVII of The Works, 3 9 volumes, San Francisco: The History Company, 1889. 829 pp.
Conners, Jo (ed.). Who's Who in Arizona. 2 vols. Tucson, Arizona: Arizona Daily Star Press, 1913.
Parish, T. E. History of Arizona. 8 vols. San Francisco: The Filmer Brothers Electrotype Company, 1915-1918.
A Historical and Biographical Period of the Territory of Arizona. Chicago: McFarland and Poole, 1896. 612 pp.
Hinton, Richard J. The Handbook to Arizona: Its Reseurces, History, Towns, Mines, Ruins and Scenery. San Francisco: Payot, Upham & Company, 1878. 431 pp.
James, George Wharton. Arizona the Wonderful. Boston: The Page Company, 1917. 478 pp.
Kelley, George H. Legislative History of Arizona: 1864-1912. Phoenix, Arizona: Manufacturing Stationers, 1926. 399 pp.
Lockwood, F. C. Pioneer Days in Arizona: From the Spanish Occupation to Statehood. New York: Ihe MacMillan Company, 1932. 387 pp.
McClintock, James H. Arizona: The Youngest State. Chicago: The S. J. Clark Publishing Company, 1916. 3 vols.
______Mormon Settlement in Arizona: A Record of Peaceful Conquests of the Desert. Phoenix, Arizona: Manufacturing Stationers, Inc., 1921. 307 pp.
Men and Women of Arizona, Past and Present. Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1940. 119 pp.
Murdock, John R. Constitutional Development of Arizona. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State Teachers College,' T930 . 216 pjJ. 103
The Constitution of Arizona. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State Teachers College, 1929. 241 pp.
Peplow, Edward H. History of Arizona. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Histori cal Publishing Company, 1958.
Portrait and Biographical Record of Arizona. Chicago: Chapman Publishing Company, 1901. 1033 pp.
Sloan, Richard E. Memories of an Arizona Judge. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1932.
, and W. R. Adams. History of Arizona. 4 vols. Phoenix, Arizona: Record Publishing Company, 1930.
Van Petten, Donald Robinson. The Constitution and Covernment of Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona: Sun Country Publishing Company, c. 1956. 234 pp.
Wyllys, Rufus Kay. Arizona: The History of a Frontier State. 1st edition. Phoenix, Arizona: Hobson & Herr, 1950. 400 pp.
Periodicals
Hubbard, Paul C. "A Toledo Trade Union and the Arizona Constitution," The Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXVII (April, 1958).
Kartus, Sidney. "In Memoriam," Arizona Historical Review, IV (April, 1931)
Keen, Effie R. "Arizona's Governors," Arizona Historical Review, III (October, 1930).
Lutrell, Estelle. "Newspapers and Periodicals of Arizona, 1859-1911," University of Arizona Bulletin, XX (July, 1947).
Sacks, B. "The Creation of the Territory of Arizona," Arizona and the West, V (Spring, 1963).
Unpublished Materials
Richards, Joseph Morris. Mormon Pioneers in Northern Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona, 1938. 98 pp. (Typewritten Ms.).
Udall, Levi Stewart. A Historical Sketch of Apache and Navajo Counties. Phoenix, Arizona, 1946. 6 pp. (Typewritten Ms.). 104.
General Works
Bames, James A. John G. Carlisle; Financial Statesman. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1931. 552 pp.
Ford, Henry Jones. The Cleveland Era, A Chronicle of the New Order in Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919. 232 pp.
Hicks, John D. The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Pariÿl Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1931. 473 pp.
Hinderaker, Ivan. Party Politics. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1956. 694 pp.
Hofstader, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York; Alfred A. Knopf, 1955. 328 pp.
The American Political Tradition. New York: Vintage Books, 1959. 381 pp.
Josephson, Matthew. The Politicos, 1865-1896. New York; Harcourt Brace & Company, 1938. 760 pp.
Kirkland, Edward C. A History of American Economic Life. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951. 740 pp.
Merrill, Horace Samuel. Bourbon Leader; Grover Cleveland and the Demo cratic Party. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1957. 224 pp.
Nevins, Allan. Grover Cleveland: A Study in Courage. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1934. 832 pp.
Pomeroy, Earl Spencer. The Territories and the United States, 1861-1890: Studies in Colonial Administration. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1947. 163 pp.
Porter, Kirk Harold and Donald Bruce Johnson. National Party Platforms, 1840-1956. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956. 578 pp.
Taussig, F. W. The Silver Situation in the United States. 3rd revised edition. New York: G. P. Putman's Sons, 1898. 157 pp.
Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1921. 375 pp.