Chapter Xxix

, • • CHAPTER XXIX HOW STATEHOOD WAS GAINED Enfranchisement Asked in Earliest T errilorial DaJ)s A Constitutional Convention that Remonetized Silver Congressional Inspection The Joint Statehood Peril Th e Con- . stitution and Its Preparation Taft's Veto of the Recall Statehood Cained Terri torial Legislators. There was talk of statehood for Arizona away back in 1872, when Richard . C. McCormick, late governor, was delegate, an office taken as a stepping stone to a senatorship., Succeeding delegates kept up the agitation, which started when Arizona was credited with a population of only a.bout 12,000, with very few payers of ta.xes. _ In 1883, Delegate Grant Oury introduced a bill for the admission to state hood of the Territory of Arizona. Several years later Delegate C. C. Bean had a bill to the same effect that also died in the committee of territories and there after Delegate Marcus A. Smith kept hammering away on the same line till statehood became rather an obsession on the part of Arizona orators and poli ticians. Arizona's demand for enfranchisement resounded from the political t rostrums at every recurring campaign and was found in every party platform. Delegations of loyal citizens paid their own way to Washington to argue with • the committees of Congress and, in rare instances, even with Congress itself, for the statehood bills once in a while were reported out of the committee on territories. One of the Smith bills, presenting a full constitution, passed the House of Representatives and went to the Senate in June, 1892, only to die in • committee. The following year, in December, with the same favoring political • conditions in the popular branch, Smith's annual statehood bill reached the • Senate in December, to be pocketed once more. That same session Carey of Utah varied the monotony It" bit by a Senate bill for the admission of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah and something of this same sort bobbed up in the Senate the following year. Delegate Oakes Murphy in 1895, without suc cess, offered ,his republican associates a statehood measure, and then, switching back to the democracy, Smith, again in office, in the 1897 Congress failed in an effort to pull a bill out of committee. His democratic successor, J. F. Wilson, had no better success on the same line in 1899. The L€gislature of 1889 called a constitutional convention of forty-two mem bers, who were to be elected in November, to meet in Phrenix on the first Tues d,ay of January, 1890. The constitution framed was to be submitted to the electors in such ma1)n er as the convention might decide. But this movement seems to have gone little further. VOl. n - 4 J • 361 I • 362 ARIZONA THE YOUNGEST STATE AN EARLY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION • Arizona's first constitutional convention was a volunteer sort of affair, in September, 1891, the delegates being elected from all parts of the territory without regard to political affiliations. A really remarkable body of men as sembled in Phamix, practically every member distinguished for ability or char acter (some for both), nearly all with prior legislative experience. 'rhey were: W. A. Rowe, H. N. Alexander, Geo. W. Cheyney, Marshall H . .Williams, Marcus '1j ". 0 • A. Smith, Wm. H. Barnes, Frank Hereford, J. W. Anderson, Alonzo Bailey, 0- • C' Ben M. Crawford, Thomas Davis, Foster S. Dennis, Thomas Gates, ,\V. A. Hartt, '< i:O 0 John Hunt, William Herring, T. C. Jordan, Art McDonald, Thos. G. Norris, () ,.C' 0 A. M. Patterson, J. F. Wilson. Rowe was elected president and Allen C. Ber z 2 U1 ~ • nard of Tucson was secretary. .....>-3 0-" J ~ "::: The work was finished October 2, 1891, and was submitted to the people d together with an address and argument in its behalf specially prepared by a .....>-3 0 committee of seven members. On the whole, the constitution prepared "read Z well," though later consideration developed many items that might have devel ~ () oped serious legal consequences. For instance, while especially claiming natural 0 Z streams and lakes as the property of the state .and specifically denying the -< t::J doctrine of riparian rights, several paragraphs expressly counteminced an Z >-3 appropriation of water for "sale" or "rental," by corporations or ditch or >-' • 0 reservoir owners, all in contrast with the present just practice of yoking the Z 0 I.. .' water with the land, inseparably. • • Just about that time there was much tribulation in the West over the de ~ monetization of silver and the single gold standard. Loyally, in keeping with N 0 Z the spirit of the many stump speeches of the members, there was inserted a >- provision that, "The gold and silver coin of the United States shall be equally 0 ~ a legal tender for all debts and obligations contracted in this state, any con 0 d tract to the contrary notwithstanding." Owing to the state of the public mind ." t::J at the time, this attempted support of contract repudiations and defiance of the ti monetary standard set by the nation passed almost without comment at home, >->-3 but was not unnoticed when the document went to Congress as a part of a t::J Z statehood bill. The constitution was accepted in Arizona by a vote of 5,440 >-3 , !:d to 2,282. ~'-< One of the early statehood conventions met in Phamix November 27, 1893, () t::J with delegates present from all save Yavapai, Mohave and Coconino counties, 0 which wanted delay till the succeeding January. Chas. W. Wright of Tucson bj was chairman of the organization and Chas. F. Hoff of Tucson, secretary. The §2 ~ convention adopted resolutions and memorialized Congress on behalf of state >-3 0 hood, incidentally giving large praise to Arizona and prophesying much con t'< cerning her future. A committee was appointed, headed by Governor Murphy, to proceed to Washington and lobby for statehood. A statehood boom was launched in Phcenix October 26, 1901, at a general territorial gathering, called by Governor Murphy, with 130 representative citizens present. A. J. Doran of Prescott was made chairman. The meeting was attended by Governor Miguel Otero of New Mexico and a notable address was made by Col. J. Francisco Chaves, whose first visit to Arizona had been in v 1855 and who, in 1863, participated in the organization of the territorial gov ernment. There was selected a delegation to proceed to Washington to lobbY • ARIZONA THE YOUNGEST STATE 363 • for statehood, including W. J. Murphy of Phrenix, Wm. C. Greene of San Pedro, E. B. Gage of Congress, John Lawler of Prescott, John Brockman of Pearce and Dr. L. W. Mix of Nogales. CONGRESSIONAL VISITATIONS The House of Representatives in 1902 passed and sent to the Senate a bill for the admission of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona, but the measure , still was under discussion when the Senate adjourned in March, 1903. The Senate opposition was led by Senator Beveridge. A visit was made to New Mexico and Arizona in 1902 by Senator Beveridge and colleagues of the Sen atorial Sub-committee on Statehood. The party spent three days looking over the territory and at a number of points took some testimony. The chairman came prepared to see Arizona at its worst. He almost omitted consideration of the great mining and irrigation enterprises, but took good care not to miss the gambling and all aspects of urban depravity. He wanted to be informed particularly about the Indian and Mexican population and he saw the cactus rather than the alfalfa fields, and the barren hills rather than the mines that in them lay. He assumed that the territory was under the dominatioll of the mining corporations. So the report of the committee on its return to Washing- . ton was adverse, unless statehood were taken in combination with New Mexico. A second committee came in October, H)03, headed by Wm. Randolph Hearst, composed mainly of democratic statesmen, who made the southwestern welkin ring with oratory and who found nothing displeasing at any point visited. In October, 1905, still a third party of investigation, mainly republi • , can, went through the territory, led by Congressman Tawney, particularly • considering the plan of joint statehood. It is told that most of the party started out with the idea that joint statehood, might be a good thing, but that in the elld every member practically was pledged against the proposed plan. It is to be deplored that some of them, including Tawney, did not keep to this deter mination and that they let politics sway them in the final vote. When there was evolved the compromise measure under which Arizona and New Mexico were to be made into a state jointly, the news was telegraphed to the Arizona Legislature by Representative Smith, February 4, 1903. Immedi-' ately was returned an answer declaring Arizona unalterably opposed to the joint-state plan. Notwithstanding this action a concurrent resolution 'passed - the council February .27, reciting that Arizona under certain conditions would • be willing to enter statehood jointly with New Mexico. This gave a glorious opportunity to the Assembly, which repudiated an assumption that it had joined • m the resolution and which advised Congressman Smith that Arizona always would fight against any policy wherein she might lose her name, identity and history. • JOINT STATEHOOD SUGGESTED , There was a grand melee over statehood in the Congress of 1904, with separate statehood bills for each of the territories still remaining outside the pale. The Ho~se Committee on Territories, finally, in despair, dropped upon the House a ~ln to admit Oklahoma in combination with Indian Territory, and to join Anzona with New Mexico.

Load more