Those favoring a liberal policy in their attitude toward the Territory insisted that the President was overreaching his constitutional authority in placing conditions upon the people of Arizona whose proposed constitution had passed inspection and been found to contain all the requisites necessary to conform with the Constitution of the United States.. Mr. Martin1 of Colorado, held that the legislature, not the courts or executive,2 was the palladium of liberty, and that government was created by legislators. That Congress acted upon the 'controlling" influence which was the firm stand of the President in planning ways to harmonize the views entertained, showed the members ready to admit the territory without delay.

Those opposing the recall held (1) that the independence of judicial officers would be curtailed, (2) that the power of the rabble would influence judicial opinions, and (3) that in time of passion, the safety of the majority would not be secured by the cool deliberation of the minority.

The amended resolution submitting the proposed constitution to the people of Arizona to reconsider by vote, but not making it mandatory that it be rejected, passed the House May 23d and was referred to the Senate Committee on Territories on May 25th. With minor amendments the resolution was voted on and passed by the Senate, fifty-three to eighteen, on August 8th, and was vetoed by the President on August 15th, at which time a message setting forth the reasons for such action was sent to the House. The recall provided for a petition of twenty-five per cent of the total number of votes cast at the previous general election and was applicable to all elective officers, including the judiciary. Within five days after the petition is filed the officer petitioned against might resign. A space · for two hundred words setting forth the reasons for recall, also a like space in which the accused might make his defense, was reserved on the ballot. If the majority vote was received by the incumbent he was not removed from office. Of this President Taft said: “This provision of the Arizona constitution in its application to the county and state judges, seems to me so pernicious in its effect, so destructive of independence in the judiciary, so likely to subject the rights of the individual to the possible tyranny of a popular majority, and, therefore, to be so injurious to the cause of free government, that I must disapprove a constitution containing it."

1.

2.

The objections were substantially as follows: (1) The rule of

Congressional Record, 62d Congress, Vol. XLVII, Pt. 2, 1246.

President Taft in his Special Message, Returning Without Approval House Joint Resolution No. 14, asserting the prerogatives of an executive, said: "But now I am discharging my constitutional function in respect to the enactment of laws, and my discretion is equal to that of the Houses of Congress."

the majority, in passion, is perilous; (2) judges, to fill their offices properly, must be independent, the recall renders them subservient; (3) the recall would remove a judge who may have the courage to render an unpopular decision; (4) no period of delay is allowed for the abatement of popular feeling; (5) it would prevent selfrespecting men accepting judicial office; (6) an elective judiciary has proved successful, then why change to a system so full of danger ?1

Communications were received from leading citizens of Arizona assuring their friends in Congress that they would be willing to sacrifice whatever advantages the recall might bring to them if by so doing a speedy admission might be provided. The debates had reached the point, however, where the purposes of the legislators were directed toward establishing precedents2 which would be of more value than the immediate relief of the territory. The Republican members, together with the President, constituted the greater part of the opposition, therefore the Democratic members received many expressions of thanks from all parts of the territory.

3

Mr. Owen representing the Committee on Territories in the Senate favoring the recall, expressed his views in its favor in part by holding that there was a tendency among the states to abbreviate the terms of judges, that the favor of minority rule has been inspired by special privilege, and that majority rule is honest, that judges in Oregon favor the recall, and the people there have not abused it, that the people are conceded to have abundant intelligence to justify them in nominating and in electing judges, therefore are qualified to exercise the recall when necessary, that judges are fallible the same as other public officials, that judicial decisions reflect political bias when emanating from the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court has assumed prerogatives denied by the Constitution creating it, and that in the higher courts there is a drift toward "judicial oligarchy." Further that when a judge becomes mentally, physically or morally disqualified, "Impeachment is so difficult as to be confessedly valueless."

On August 17th, two days after President Taft had vetoed and presented his objections to Congress, Mr. Smith of Michigan, as directed by the Senate Committee on Territories, introduced Senate

1. Special Message of the President of the United States, Returning Without Approval, House Joint Resolution No. 14.

2. (Page 32.) This board canvassing the vote purposely delayed action, being hostile to the proposed constitution, and thus not only prevented immediate action by Congress but put off the first state election two years.

3. Calendar No. 86, 62d Congress, Report 100, Pt. 2.

Joint Resolution No. 572 for the admission of the territory, which provided that the people of Arizona should change their proposed constitution by voting out the clause containing the recall at the price of securing coveted statehood. As the situation appeared at this time, the Senate that had voted more than three to one providing statehood by the mere presenting of the recall to the people for their reconsideration now demanded that such a reconsideration must result in a vote to eradicate. After long delay and patient labor, the way that the President had advised was finally up for ratification or rejection. In the debates that followed references to the President more or less uncomplimentary1 were frequent, and the expression of the House that had voted four to one to relieve Arizona from the ordeal through which she was about to pass was especially free in vilifying the resolution about to be considered. The measure passed the Senate on August 18th, and the House on th following day.

On the 22d it was signed by the President, whereupon Governor Sloan issued a proclamation for an election to be held December 12th, and provided for the election of a full state ticket and a member of Congress. Previous to this election the first primary under the new state constitution was held on October 24th, resulting in the choice of W. P. Hunt and Thomas F. Weedin by the Democrats, and E. W. Wells and George W. Young by the Republicans. The Democrats elected the entire ticket and a majority of the legislature. At this general election an advisory vote was taken for two United States Senators, resulting in a majority for Marcus Smith, who had served the territory eight terms as delegate to Congress, and Henry Ashurst. The vote to eliminate the recall as provided in the constitution was practically unanimous. The population of the new state entitled her to one member in the House of Representatives, to which office Carl Hayden was duly elected.

2. That part of Senate Joint Resolution making it mandatory upon the people of Arizona to reject the recall in order to be admitted is as follows: "If a majority of the legal votes cast at said election upon said amendment shall be in favor thereof, the said canvassing board shall forthwith certify said result to the governor of the territory, together with the statement of votes cast upon the question of the ratification or rejection of said amendment; whereupon the governor of said territory shall, by proclamation, declare the said amendment a part of the constitution of the proposed state of Arizona, and thereupon the same shall become and be a part of said constitution; and if the said proposed amendment to Section 1 of Article 8 of the constitution of Arizona is not adopted and ratified as aforesaid, then, and in that case, the territory of Arizona shall not be admitted into the Union as a state, under the provisions of this act."-Statutes of the United States of America, 1st Session, 62d Congress, 43.

1. Congressional Record, 62d Congress, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII, 4118-4141. and Vol. XLVIII, 4212-4242.

On April 2d the recently elected Senators1 took the oath of office and entered upon their duties in the third session of the Sixtysecond Cougress.

Following the admission to statehood thus attained by the renunciation of the recall the legislature and the people had the power to re-incorporate the feature that had been objected to so strenuously by President Taft. On April 27, 1912,2 an amendment for the recall of judges, which was the first bill introduced in the first legislature, was passed, the vote being unanimous in the House and only two members dissenting in the Senate, these being Hubbell and Smith. On November 5, 1912, the recall of the judiciary was adopted by the people and thus after a two years' war in the halls of Congress and more than sixty years of zealous endeavor, the goal of territorial ambition had been attained. Thus did the Territory of Arizona pass sub jugum into the Federal Union and by so doing she enjoyed the rare privilege of exercising a spirit of humility denied her sister

states.

1. The terms of the two senators was determined by lot; Mr. Smith thus received the short term expiring March 3, 1915, and Mr. Ashurst the long term, which will end March 3, 1917.

2. The facts here in set forth were obtained from the daily newspapers immediately following the events considered. Access to the files of the Los Angeles Evening Express was obtained through the courtesy of the editor and the librarian. The Arizona Blue Book for 1911 has been issued recently but its data pertains exclusively to events that happened previous to admission.

MEETING OF THE PACIFIC COAST BRANCH OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

(November 28-29, 1913)

BY ROCKWELL D. HUNT.

At the joint invitation of the Historical Society of Southern California the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association held its Eleventh Annual Meeting in Los Angeles. This proved to be of unusual interest and significance, partly because of the excellence of the program presented and especially because of its being the first meeting of the Branch to be held south of Palo Alto.

The several sessions were largely attended not only by visiting and local members of the American Historical Association, but also by members of the Historical Society of Southern California and history teachers, particularly of collegiate and secondary rank. The work of the program committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Rockwell D. Hunt and of the committee on general arrangements, under the headship of Professor Roy Malcom, both of the University of Southern California, had been thoroughly done preliminary to the Meeting itself, thus insuring results that were highly gratifying to visiting members and all concerned.

At the first general session, held in East Hall, University of Southern California, on Friday afternoon and presided over by President Guinn, three papers were presented as follows: (1) "The Anti-Slavery Movement in England," by Professor Frank J. Klingberg, U. S. C..; (2) "The Movement of Population in Feudal and Modern Japan," by Mr. Yamato Ichihashi, of Stanford University; (3) "The Relation of Slavery to the Early Sentiment for the Acquisition of California," by Professor Robert G. Cleland, of Occidental College.

The second general session, Saturday morning, was held in the newly opened Museum of History in Exposition Park, where the library and collections of the Historical Society had been recently installed. Papers were presented as follows: (1) "The Hayes Collection in the Bancroft Library," by Dean W. F. Bliss of the State Normal School, San Diego; (2) "The Development of the National System of Land Administration," by Professor Francis H.