New Mexico's Quest for Statehood, 1846-1912

XVII. The Final Steps

SEVENTEEN their conservative constitution a likely candidate for approval despite a national Democratic victory in the 1910 congressional election. At the time the constitution wascompleted, a "lame duck" Republican Congress was still in session,and a President known to be cautious and scrupulously legal wasin the White House. But in 1910 it was not Santa Fe or Washington that halted the march toward statehood, it was Phoenix. There on December 9, Arizona Territory completed its constitution. Long, liberal, and very unlike New Mexico's, it contained measuresfor initiative, referendum,and recall, and a child labor provision. In every phase of legislation, Arizona's constitution reflected a liberal mood, astounding those who had been sure Arizona was a corporation-controlled baliwick. President Taft may have understood the situation a little better. He had visited the territory in 1909 and observed that strong labor forces under the guidance of a prominent businessman, George W. P. Hunt, had gained control of the Twenty-fifth Territorial Legislature. Taft had subtly warned the territory at that time to refrain from radical provisions in its constitution.1 The Progressivism spreading throughout America at this time could not, however , have been checked by President Taft or any one else. In Arizona, where workers, farmers, and small businessmen had long been under the yoke of big business, Progressivismgrew as dissatisfactionwith the status quo mounted.2 The election for constitutional convention delegates showed the strength of the workers by giving41 out of 52 seats to Demo287 The Final Steps EW MEXICANS CONSIDERED N 288 NEW MEXICO'S QUEST FOR STATEHOOD crats, and Democrats triumphed again when Hunt, who had travelled to Oregon and California to study Progressive laws and constitutions, was elected president of the convention.3 After nearly two months of debate and maneuver, Progressivism prevailed and a constitution considered almost radical for its time was adopted. The recall provision in the new document was thought to be most dangerous. Prior to Arizona's adoption of the measure, only Oregon had incorporated such a provision into her constitution. Although California was to follow shortly thereafter, the newness of this instrument of direct legislation caused lifted eyebrows.The inclusionof judgesin the provision only made it more unacceptable. According to the Arizona recall, any elective officer, having been in office six months or more, was subject to a recall election upon the petition of 25 per cent of the voters who participated in the last election.4 Other provisions for direct legislation included an initiative in which 10 per cent of the voters could propose a law and, if a majorityapproved it at the next election, the law would be final. A referendum was also provided whereby 5 per cent of the vote could, by petition, order the submission to the people of any enactment of the legislature, except for those acts immediately necessary to preserve "public peace, health or safety."5 Before Arizonans voted approval or disapproval of their constitution, the press across the nation had much to sayon the subject. The El Paso Herald, three daysbefore the February 9 election to ratify the new instrument , recommended that if Arizona really wanted a constitution, the smartest thing that shecould dowould be to reject the instrument adopted by the Phoenix convention. The President would never approve the document and this would cause unnecessary delay. If the people rejected the constitution, they would have a chance to vote on it again in a fewweeks without the objectionable recall provision.6 The New York Evening Post, although sharing the dislike for recall—especially recall of judges—felt the threat was exaggerated. " . . . The Union will survive even if Arizona does her worst; nor need the judgesof the Supreme Court at Washington tremble for what may be done at Phoenix . . . ,"7 Perhaps this was sagacious advice, because Arizonans ratified the constitution by a vote of 12,187to 3>302 Prominent individuals had their opinions about the new constitution too. Catron adamantly opposed the provisions for direct legislation. "I do not believe in either the initiative, referendum, or recall; they are heresies and constitute the first movement in the direction of anarchy in this government of ours; that is, we will all be nihilists in a few years or in a nihilist government if those radicalswho are starting such a movement are allowed to get control."8 However, a much more potent figure, former THE FINAL STEPS 289 President Roosevelt, gave the new...