On August 3, 1918, a conservative editor of an Arizona newspaper declared: “In no state in the Union has the crusade against big business been waged so unceasingly and unscrupulously as in Arizona . . . From governor down to cross-roads constable it has become the custom to make faces at corporations and threaten to take their scalps.”¹ Now, the editor contended, the tide was turning; the loudmouth agitator was in retreat, and right-thinking conservatives were about to regain control of the state.

Arizonans had indeed witnessed a gigantic thirty-year struggle. On one side were anti-corporate reformers bent on economic...

In the 1860s Arizonans set out on a quest for economic growth. Acting in a united fashion to promote development of the area’s natural resources, territorial leaders obtained much of what they had wished for by the late 1880s—in came the railroads and the investment needed for large-scale deep–shaft mining operations. Development, however, brought concerns over corporate economic and political power and drew attention to problems that had surfaced in regard to taxation, regulation, and labor conditions. At that same time, development and population growth led to considerable heterogeneity, social and economic tension, and the emergence of partisan...

In the early 1890s Arizonans had two major causes: statehood and free silver. The two major parties agreed on these goals, but neither was willing to offer much in terms of political reform or to challenge corporations in the interests of labor. This left room for the emergence of a third party. The pressure for change in this direction was stimulated further by a chain of events—a severe economic downturn, the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, and the Pullman Strike.

Arizona’s population grew from 88,243 in 1890 to 122,931 in 1900.¹ Many prominent Arizonans viewed favorable economic...

The national Populist or People’s Party, formed in 1891, represented farmers, workers, and others who—for one reason or another—were unhappy with the way the economic, social, and political systems were evolving in the last decades of the nineteenth century. The preamble to the party’s platform, adopted in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1892, described the United States as a nation in which labor was impoverished and “the fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few.”

For the Populists, this land of “tramps and millionaires” was on the “verge of moral, political,...

Arizona’s population jumped from about 123,000 in 1900 to over 204,000 in 1910, a 66 percent increase. During the same period, the US population grew by only 21 percent.¹ Encouraged by these numbers, prominent Arizonans renewed the drive for statehood. There was little sentiment in the territory for joint statehood with New Mexico, however. Arizona’s corporate leaders were among those most strongly opposed to this proposal. While the statehood issue took center stage, territorial politics moved out of its Populist phase with the death of the silver issue and the failure of Populist leaders’ final attempt in 1900 to fuse...

Arizona’s working class in the last decades of the nineteenth century consisted of native-born Anglos, Hispanics, and European-born immigrants who found employment in farming, mining, and transportation (especially with the railroads). Workers were divided by skilled-unskilled differentials, language, and ethnic backgrounds. The native-born and European Anglos held the skilled and semi-skilled positions. Hispanics were more prevalent among the unskilled workers.¹

The most highly skilled workers organized first—for social purposes as well as to protect and advance their economic status. Much of this activity took place in areas impacted heavily by railroad and mining activities. Arizona railroad workers had organized...

In 1901 over 100 Socialists attended a “unity convention” in Indianapolis, Indiana, and created the Socialist Party of America, also known simply as the Socialist Party. Leaders later recognized the importance of the 1893 depression and the 1894 American Railway Union Strike in setting the conditions that led to the birth of the new party and of the historic role the Populists played in leading the attack on the old parties. They also acknowledged that many Socialists came out of the Populist movement and credited the Populists as the source of several reforms in the Socialist Party’s platform.¹

Delegates at...

During the period 1907–1909, the last years of territorial governance, Arizona politics was shaped by the confluence of several strong currents. For one thing, with the joint statehood proposal shot down, statehood for Arizona seemed imminent and political leaders were focused on removing the last remaining obstacles. To improve the chances for statehood, leaders emphasized upgrading Arizona’s image by exerting greater control over drinking and gambling. The increased political mobilization of labor also stirred the political pot, prompting the major parties—especially the Democrats—to pay more attention to labor’s demands. Compounding the problem for Democrats was the need...

By late 1909 it had became apparent that Arizona would likely soon become a state. Soon thereafter, a struggle for control took place during the drafting of the statehood enabling act and in the selection of delegates to the ensuing Constitutional Convention. In the past the prospect of statehood had aroused the interests of politicians concerned about offices, corporations seeking outside capital, and farmers and ranchers hoping to shift taxes to the corporations.¹ In 1910 unionists and Socialists, acting through a newly created Labor Party, became new and influential players in statehood politics. They exerted considerable influence on the Progressive...

Following their victory in the 1910 delegate contest, the Progressive-labor Democrats took control of the Constitutional Convention, causing considerable alarm among conservatives who said they feared the leftists would produce a document that would be rejected in Washington and, more important, a document that, if not rejected, would make the new state unsafe for people of wealth.¹ Though it failed to provide for some of the Labor Party’s demands, with woman suffrage a prominent example, the document they produced was reflective of several fresh ideas and approaches when it came to expanding democracy, regulating business, and protecting labor.

Delegates to...

In the December 12, 1911, election in which they decided to remove the judicial recall from their constitution, Arizona voters also selected their first set of elected officials. Frank Murphy asked voters to “give capitalism a chance” and avoid putting radicals in state offices.¹ There was some confusion over whether George Hunt fell into the radical category, but voters favored him for governor along with a slate of other Democrats—all of whom did their best to sound at least strongly Progressive—for all major offices.

Governor Hunt, his program, and reaction to that program dominated the headlines in 1912....

In November 1912 Arizona voters continued to demonstrate the Progressive mood that had led to the approval of the constitution and the first set of office holders. The 1912 election, however, created serious concerns for the Hunt Democrats. After the election, Hunt had to deal with increased opposition from corporations and their supporters within the Democratic Party. Their public attack centered on Hunt’s stand on capital punishment, prison reform, and the granting of pardons and paroles. Hunt survived the 1914 general election, even though voters sided with his critics on these issues and some of his supporters in the legislature...

With the ascendency of the Hunt regime, Arizonans at the far left of the political spectrum had high hopes for fundamental change. Recovering from near devastation following the Labor Party episode, Socialists themselves demonstrated considerable electoral support, reaching a high point in 1912 but still strong enough in 1914 to capture the attention of major parties. Along with building and maintaining the agenda for anti-corporate reform, Socialists reminded Hunt and the Democrats of their commitment to the Labor Party platform and kept watch to see that this commitment was honored. At the same time, they took advantage of the initiative...

Democrats could take considerable comfort from the results of the 1914 elections, even though the legislative results were not that encouraging. With these results, combined with an intense corporate lobbying effort, the pace of reform slowed considerably in the legislature that went into session in 1915. By that time the courts had also entered the battle, often coming out on the corporations’ side. Union leaders, many of whom were solidly in Governor George Hunt’s camp, saw themselves engaged in a war of survival on the industrial as well as the political front. Employers throughout the state had become more determined...

Speaking to a gathering of Arizona bankers in the fall of 1915, Frank Murphy warned that Hunt was “aiding and abetting agitators who are largely influencing the workingmen against their own interests and the welfare of the state.” Between Hunt and the broader anti-corporate movement that had engulfed the state, Murphy argued that it was high time for the business community to become politically involved and control the situation. For Murphy, “It is the rankest kind of nonsense for business men to devote their energies and genius to working out economies in their business,” only to have “the results of...

Following a recount of the votes cast during the 1916 gubernatorial election, the Maricopa County Superior Court awarded the governorship to Thomas E. Campbell on December 16, 1916. Hunt went to the State Supreme Court seeking a reversal by charging vote fraud. The State Supreme Court’s final decision, which came a year after Campbell became governor, gave the election to Hunt by forty-three votes and put him back in office on December 23, 1917.¹

During the time Campbell served as governor, several developments took place that were ultimately detrimental to Hunt and the cause of reform. With Hunt out of...

George Hunt was angry while delivering a message to the Third Arizona Legislature, meeting in special session in May 1918. He praised the support Arizonans had shown for the war effort but denounced the profiteering patriot, “the detestable hypocrite who with sanctimonious demeanor goes through the mummery of patriotic service, though striving all the while to profit by his country’s dire stress.” In the past year, the governor contended, individuals of this type “had reaped a hapless harvest of industrial strife, culminating in such shameful events as the deportations at Bisbee and Jerome,” and displayed “the reckless tendency to brand...

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...