Politics, Labor, and the War on Big Business: The Path of Reform in Arizona, 1890-1920

Concluding Observations

233 ConcludingObservations The Populist-Progressive reform era, roughly 1890 to 1920, incorporated several causes and drives that were loosely related, unrelated, and even incompatible. The concern in this book has been with a central focus of the period—the need to control the political and economic influence of large corporations—as it played out in a thinly settled territory and state where mining was the principal activity. In this environment, anger directed at the corporations—many of which were headquartered elsewhere—competed with an equally strong, if not ultimately stronger, desire for economic development. Contrary to much of the literature on Progressivism, the anti–corporate reform effort in Arizona was a genuine reform effort led by serious, reformminded people who were willing to butt heads with corporate leaders. They were not simply trying to be fashionable by picking up ideas developed elsewhere . They were looking for solutions to real problems facing people who lived in the territory and the state. They set out to rein in the power of corporations principally by adding new electoral mechanisms to the governing system. They sought to increase corporate taxation and regulation and, through unionization and various public policy measures, to improve the lives of working people. To 234 c o n c l u d i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s a considerable extent, they were successful in securing changes opposed by the corporate elite. Those leading the battle against big business fought for a similar package of reforms and used similar language and justifications for their positions, though their specific targets and ultimate objectives differed somewhat. As the Populist Buckey O’Neill protested the “rule of organized wealth,” George Hunt condemned a prevailing system of “greed backed by power.” O’Neill and the Populists directed much of their attack against the large railroad companies— the Santa Fe, the Southern Pacific, and their subsidiaries. Under Hunt and the Progressive-labor Democrats, large mining corporations, especially Phelps Dodge, became the central focus. Taxation and labor issues were major bones of contention. Socialists agreed on short-term reforms but also took a broader perspective. For them, being anti-corporate was part of a larger anti-capitalist battle. When we examine the entire set of anti–corporate reform issues, it is difficult to discern major differences among radicals and reformers, Populists, Socialists, and self-proclaimed Progressive Democrats or between any of these groups and the left-leaning labor organizations active during the same period. To add to the complexity of the reform effort, however, those who agreed on the basic elements of the anti-corporate package went different ways on other issues. One important area of disagreement among anti-corporate reformers revolved around Hunt’s policies on prison reform and capital punishment. Anti-corporate reformers also competed with each other. In the political field, this brought the risk of splitting the vote for anti-corporate candidates. In the industrial field, rival unions often exhibited more passion fighting each other than they did in trying to win concessions from management. At times, the course of anti-corporate reform was complicated by its interaction with various other causes and concerns. In the early years, the free silver movement helped mobilize the reform-minded and gave Populists a highly valuable strategic issue—one mine owners, mineworkers, farmers, and city dwellers could rally around. Silver, though, also clouded the Populists’ anti-corporate message . The drive toward statehood forced both pro- and anti-corporate forces to make political calculations and take their fight for future control of the state to Washington, DC. Partisan considerations were a barrier to statehood, but also involved was the question of which side—the reformers or the corporations— would take over the new state. Conservatives such as William Howard Taft worried about the radicals. Progressive Republicans in the US Congress worried about the corporations. They saw matters getting worse without the constraints imposed by appointed territorial officials and considerable virtue in joint statehood with New Mexico as a way of diffusing corporate power. Anti-corporate reformers from Arizona 235 c o n c l u d i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s agreed that statehood required safeguards against corporate control. They sought these safeguards as protections embedded in the state constitution. The Hunt forces made some concessions at the Constitutional Convention in the hope that they...