Remembering Lorna Lockwood, 1903 – 1977

In 2020, we celebrate 100 years of women achieving the right to vote in federal elections by profiling notable accomplishments of Arizona women. Women won the right to vote in state and local elections in Arizona in 1912, 8 years before the 19th Amendment became law.

Lorna Lockwood, Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, 1970s.

Surely one of Arizona’s greatest legal talents was Justice Lorna Lockwood, the first female Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. She was a lawyer, legislator, and judge who achieved a long list of “firsts”: she was the first woman to graduate from law school in Arizona, the first woman to be appointed an Assistant Attorney General, the first woman to be elected to the Superior Court, the first female Supreme Court justice in Arizona and in the country, and the first female Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and in the country. Admired by many for her skills as a judge and kindness as a human being, she gave a boost to countless other women in the legal field. Justice Lockwood changed the landscape of the legal profession in Arizona forever.

Lorna Elizabeth Lockwood was born in Douglas, Arizona on March 24, 1903. Her father, Alfred C. Lockwood, was a prominent attorney. In 1913 when Alfred Lockwood was appointed to the Superior Court for Cochise County, he moved the family to Tombstone. Lorna graduated from Tombstone High School, then earned a degree from the University of Arizona. At a time when many people disapproved of women going to law school, she graduated from the University of Arizona College of Law in 1925, first woman to do so. Unable to find work as a lawyer, she worked as a secretary and law clerk for her father, who was then a Justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. She worked as a secretary at a Phoenix law firm. She partnered with another women to open her own law firm, but there was not much work for a female law firm and it dissolved three years later.

Lorna Lockwood, 1939

In the meantime, Lockwood became active in Democratic party. Those connections helped her win a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives in 1939 representing Maricopa County. Hard-working and knowledgeable about the issues, she was re-elected in 1941.

Lockwood resigned at the beginning of World War II to work as a secretary to Arizona’s one congressman in Washington D.C. Soon she returned to Arizona, which she considered to be the best state in the nation. She worked as chief counsel for the wartime Office of Price Administration. After the war, she joined her father and brother-in-law in private practice in Phoenix.

Lockwood was elected again to the Arizona House of Representatives in 1947. She applied for membership in the Lawyer’s Club of Phoenix but was rejected. The Club did not allow women, so Lockwood quietly formed her own club for women lawyers. She had standing reservations for Wednesdays at noon at a popular downtown Phoenix restaurant and invited all the women lawyers in town to join her. There were only five or six, so they could fit at one table, but the male lawyers noticed them there, week after week. The women offered each other professional support at a time when it was still difficult for women attorneys.

Near the end of her third term in the Legislature, Lockwood was appointed as Assistant Attorney General. In 1950 she ran her fourth campaign, this time for judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court. Accounts differ, but the gist of the tale is the same: thirteen candidates were competing for five seats, so Lorna tried a novel strategy. In campaign speeches, she acknowledged that her audience probably had first, second, and third favorite candidates, but asked the voters to vote for her as their fourth choice. The voters went for it. She came in fourth and was elected to the Maricopa Superior Court, Arizona’s trial court. During most of the years of Justice Lockwood’s career, judges were elected in Arizona. Merit selection was adopted in 1974 by ballot proposition. Merit selection provides that a panel of people evaluate judicial candidates on their credentials and sends a short list of recommendations to the Governor. The Governor appoints the new judge from the names on the list. Judges for the Court of Appeals, Superior Courts in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Coconino counties, and Justices for the Supreme Court are now chosen by merit selection. You can read the ballot proposition here (PDF p. 27).

Lorna Lockwood, 1955

Lockwood was the first woman to become a judge in Arizona and soon earned a reputation as being tough but fair. Soon after she became a judge she faced two contentious male lawyers in her courtroom. Although she reprimanded them, they continued to jump up and interrupt each other. Judge Lockwood rapped the gavel, held them both in contempt and fined them $5.00. The way the story is told, the courtroom was full of lawyers who laughed at their comeuppance, and undoubtedly retold the story. She didn’t have trouble maintaining control of her courtroom after that.

There are many examples of Lockwood’s compassion and regard for the dignity of every individual. She established a court at the state hospital so that mentally ill people did not have to be transported to the courthouse for their cases. When she presided over the juvenile division, she toured the county juvenile detention center. She was so horrified to see two cells with iron bars that she ordered them welded shut. She believed that her role was to carefully balance the best interests of the children in the cases before her with those of parents and society. While she thought that children should be held accountable for their actions, she believed that long terms of incarceration were not in their best interests. She invited civic and church groups to visit her courtroom, reasoning that it would help people to understand the types of cases that went to court and result in helpful suggestions to the court. She co-founded Arizona Big Brothers Big Sisters and Girls’ Ranch of Arizona. In 1957, however, the great emotional and mental strain of making decisions that would affect the future of young offenders caused her to resign from the juvenile division and return to the trial bench. Lawyers who appeared in her courtroom had a high regard for her insightful judgment, gracious courtesy, and willingness to make controversial decisions.

Lorna Lockwood, 1958

In 1960 she ran for the Arizona Supreme Court. At the time Arizona did not have a Court of Appeals. She campaigned all over the state, even on Whiskey Row in Prescott. She went into every saloon, introduced herself to the bartender, and asked for his support. Then she asked if she could put a poster in the window and leave campaign literature with him. Every bartender promised his support and put a stack of her brochures next to the cash register. She won the election, upsetting the incumbent. She was the first woman to serve on the Arizona Supreme Court and sat at the desk her father had used when he was a Supreme Court Justice. In 1965 and 1970 she was selected as Chief Justice by the other justices of the Court. Over the next fourteen years, she would author some 500 judicial opinions. Her colleagues on the Supreme Court admired her hard work, dedication, good sense of humor, and animated personality. Justice Fred C. Struckmeyer Jr. described her as “[o]ne of the best judges we’ve had. She was a person who was very interested in other people and very kindly in her personal outlook toward people”.

Lorna Lockwood, 1970s

Justice Lockwood authored important legal precedents. Her opinion in Stone v Arizona Highway Commission (1963) abolished the historic doctrine of government immunity which had prohibited lawsuits against the state. Her opinion held that the State of Arizona was liable for its failure to post warnings of dangerous road conditions. In O.S. Stapley Company v Miller (1968), her opinion adopted strict liability against manufacturers for defective products. She believed in judicial deference to legislative intent, perhaps due to her experience as a legislator, and was likely to apply legislative language strictly. In re Krueger (1968), a difficult adoption case, she upheld the adoption and held that the birth father’s consent was not required, but wrote, “[w]e are here constrained to comment with disfavor upon the method of placement of the child in this case, which does violence to the spirit, if not the letter of our adoption laws”.

Through her many campaigns and service organizations, Justice Lockwood knew hundreds of people. Many of them became her friends. She was an avid reader and gardener. She often hosted dinner parties. She loved musical theater and had her father’s complete record collection of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operettas. She used to lend it to Mesa High School, which presented one of the shows every year. She was a regular at the Phoenix Symphony. Friends report that while adults were often intimidated by her, children never were. She loved small children and they loved her. Although she never became a mother, she was devoted to her nieces and nephews.

Arizona Supreme Court, 1957

In 1975, after fourteen years on the Arizona Supreme Court, ten years on the Superior Court bench, 6 years in the state legislature, and two years as an assistant attorney general, poor health forced Justice Lockwood to retire. Some 2000 people tried to attend a banquet in her honor that had space for only 900. At the banquet, congratulatory letters from President Gerald Ford and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Warren Burger were read. In retirement she became of counsel to the law firm of her brother-in-law and nephew.

Justice Lockwood insisted that she was not a militant feminist, “but I am terribly glad when women succeed”¹. She helped many women in the legal profession to succeed. In the words of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Lorna Lockwood offered “kindly interest and encouragement”² to other professional women. She had a statewide network through her activities with the Soroptimist Club, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women, the Arizona Women’s Bar Association, and many other professional and civic organizations. Most of the prominent women in the legal profession in the early years had been encouraged and mentored by Justice Lockwood. Each of these accomplished women credited Lorna Lockwood with being a pioneer who opened the way for women who followed her. She also encouraged women to become active in policymaking and to run for the state Legislature.

Justice Lockwood passed away in 1977, just two years after she retired. A memorial service was held at the First Congregational Church of Phoenix, where she had been a longtime member. There was another memorial service in the Rotunda of the Arizona State Capitol, during which she was honored by speakers Governor Raul Castro, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice James Duke Cameron, Vice Chief Justice Fred Struckmeyer Jr., State Representative Polly Rosenbaum, Judge Warren McCarthy, friend Virginia Hash, and Justice Lockwood’s pastor Hugh Shelby Lee. In honor of her lifelong generosity and commitment to the law, her family asked that donations be made to a scholarship fund for law students at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University.


¹ Cleere, Jan. Levi’s & Lace Arizona Women Who Made History. Rio Nuevo Publishers, 2011, p. 179.

² David, Sonja White. Lady Law the Story of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Lorna Lockwood. Brighton Publishing LLC, 2012, p. 111.


Solano, A.C., Babcock, B & Wayne, E. (2003). Lorna Lockwood: Lawyer, legislator, leader. Retrieved from State of Arizona Research Library Lorna Lockwood vertical file, January 24, 2020.

Choosing our elected representatives: a look through time


In Arizona we elect one Senator and two Representatives from each legislative district, but it wasn’t always that way. The Legislature spent decades trying out different systems with the goal of achieving the most equitable representation in the state legislature.

CCWhen delegates met at the Constitutional Convention in 1910 to draft a state Constitution, they did not draw legislative districts. Instead, they used the most logical political subdivisions for representation: the counties. The Constitution set the number of representatives and senators from each county.  Article IV, Part 2, Sec. 1 (page 8 of the PDF) stated:

The Legislature

While the delegates attempted to fairly balance the population and the number of voters in each county, African Americans, women, and Native Americans were not eligible to vote.¹

A voter initiative changed the provision in 1918, but it was only slightly less confusing. The Senate would continue to have 19 members, with one or two elected by each county, depending on its population. The number of members in the House of Representatives would increase, with the intent to make representation fairer. Each county would now elect one representative for each 1500 votes “or major fraction thereof” cast in the last election for Governor. Creating districts of 1500 voters was meant to ensure that elected representatives would be known to everyone in their districts. In every county eligible for more than one representative, the Board of Supervisors was to divide the county into legislative districts. The districts were to be compact in shape, not to include non-contiguous areas, and have the same voting population. This ballot begins on page 38 (of the PDF) of the full initiative and referendum publicity pamphlet from 1918.

Proposed amendmentballotsballots2

One of the arguments in favor of the ballot proposition pointed out that it would be more feasible for women to be elected as representatives. The authors argued (page 42 of PDF):


There were no statements filed in opposition to the ballot proposition, which passed decisively: 17,564 to 10,688.

In 1932, another ballot initiative passed, changing the size of districts from 1500 citizens to 2500, thereby reducing the number of members of the House of Representatives from 64 to 37. The initiative also reduced the pay of all legislators from $15.00 to $8.00 per day, limited the number and pay of legislative “attaches” to $5.00 a day, and limited the number of days of legislative sessions (page 22 of PDF).

general electionsubmitted

A group that called itself a state-wide Legislative Economy Committee proposed the initiative and filed an argument in support of the measure (page 25 of PDF). It summarized the cost-saving measures of the proposition and touted that it would save the state $60,000 in salaries! There were no arguments filed in opposition. Unsurprisingly, it passed by a wide margin: 56,182 to 29,806.

1953 brought another proposition to the ballot, this time referred by the Legislature. It proposed that the Senate would be comprised of 2 members from each county elected at large. The House of Representatives was reorganized again. A representative would be selected for each 3520 ballots cast in the last election in each county, for a total of 80 or fewer House members.  The Boards of Supervisors would draw the district lines.

the leg

Proponents argued that the proposition, patterned like the federal system, would more fairly represent the population in each county. Opponents objected to allowing small counties to send two Senators to the state legislature. The publisher of the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, ripped the proposal:


It passed by just 444 votes: 30,157 in favor versus 29,713 opposed.

In 1968, a referendum changed the composition of the state Legislature again, identifying 32 districts and specifying that each district would elect one Senator and 2 Representatives. After every census and every four years after the general election the Legislature would review the districts and make necessary changes. An apportionment committee would be appointed if the Legislature failed to act. One of the opponents was State Senator Bob Stump, who later represented Arizona in Congress for 26 years (page 55 of PDF):

prop 300Prop 300-2

Despite Senator Stump’s opposition, the measure passed 210,262 to 148,424.

proposed amend constitution

The system we have today was established by referendum in 1972. It established 30 legislative districts. One Senator and two Representatives would represent each district. It passed resoundingly: 308,801 in favor to 162,550 opposed (page 33 of PDF).

All legislative terms are two years. Your legislative district will select one Senator and two Representatives to the state Legislature this year.  The deadline to register to vote is October 5, 2020. The election is November 3, 2020. For information on voting and the election, visit the Arizona Secretary of State’s website.


election wagon


¹ African Americans were granted the vote in 1870 by the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Arizona women got the right to vote after Statehood, by an initiative in the general election held on November 5, 1912. Native Americans became citizens, eligible to vote in federal elections, in 1924. They became eligible to vote in Arizona elections in 1948.

The Death of Froilana Lucero



Froilana Lucero likely ended her own life 120 years ago in what is now the ghost town of Weaver, according to the Arizona Weekly Journal-Miner’s reporting the following week. The paper noted her connection to her brothers: one, Vicento, charged for the November 1898 murder of William Segna, on circumstantial testimony. Vicento would be pardoned and paroled 15 years later.


Froilana played a role in most accounts of the death of Charles P. Stanton, who consolidated power in nearby Stanton, formerly Antelope Station, throughout the 1870s and 1880s. Stanton was the dark nexus of a grisly series of crimes, never successfully directly implicated, described as a “puppetmaster” by some historians.

By most accounts, on the night of November 13, 1886, Froilana’s brothers killed Stanton for at least dishonoring, if not assaulting, their sister. The records are not clear. What is clear is almost no party was sorry to see Charles Stanton go.

Many histories point such violence driving Froilana to despair and death. Some newspaper stories about her death describe the Luceros as a gang—“the old coterie of cut-throats that has for over thirty years been encouraged with each succeeding crime”—with Froilana as the ringleader.

FroilanaWhat most stories have not included, likely due to lack of access, is a July 27, 1895 story from Tucson’s El Fronterizo.

With the headline Voló al Cielo—“Flew to Heaven”— it memorializes the death of Juaquinito Granillo, a baby “at the tender age of ten months and ten days” on July 15, 1895 in Santa Maria, California.

Juaquinito was born in Congress, near Weaver, and where most Weaver citizens would live after the town’s dissolution. He was the son of Jesus and Froilana Granillo, and among the uncles listed are the Luceros: Vicente—some three years away from prison and twenty years from later freedom, Donaciano, and Pedro. A “furious fever lasting not more than eight hours” killed Juaquinito, “leaving his inconsolable parents in deepest pain.”

Many contemporaneous newspaper stories and later histories involving Stanton, Weaver, and the Luceros invoke lurid spectacles of grisly murders and crimes of the so-called Old West: wagon robberies and massacres, stabbings in mining town saloons in the “decidedly the dark and bloody ground of Yavapai county”.  Papers also used plain racism, saying of Weaver: “Hardly ever has a white man ever cast his lot in that hamlet of adobe houses who has been permitted to live unmolested.”

Yet sometimes in the middle of such melodrama, sad facts emerge: a child’s death; grieving parents and family. Jesus and Froilana’s marriage records have not turned up, nor has his death or divorce, for Froilana went by her birth name when she died. This small notice in a newspaper—and a later one from the family, thanking mourners for their support— as yet remains the sole scrap illuminating another facet of tragedy for Froilana. Were it not for optical character recognition and digital newspaper access, who can say how long such a sorrow, forgotten, yet vital, would have remained unknown?

Froilana’s grave is one of the few identifiable graves in the Weaver Cemetery, which the desert is rapidly reclaiming.


Blog post written by Chris Seggerman.


Law and State Government Research

If you’re looking for information about Arizona state government or Arizona law, we have a great place for you to start.

state seal

We’ve assembled a collection of state agency histories that summarize many of the agencies, boards, and commissions that work to carry out laws enacted by the State Legislature. There are currently almost 150 agencies, boards, and commissions, both current and repealed or absorbed, on our website.

Each history provides a revision date so you can tell how current the information is. Attempts are made to update the histories on an annual basis, with an exception for those that no longer exist. Agencies led by an elected official (eg., Governor’s Office, Secretary of State) are not included.

The histories are in alphabetical order and are also searchable not only by title, but by the information within each history.

agency hx

You can start here for the statutes that authorized the agency, a description of the work it does, whether it is headed by an executive director or board. You can also read about how its responsibilities have changed over time, and a list of statutes, regulations, audits, websites, and other useful information. Links are provided where possible so that researchers can view the primary resource for themselves.

That’s a good place to start.

But if you need assistance, you can always reach us Monday through Friday 8am-4pm at the Polly Rosenbaum History and Archives Building, by calling us at (602)926-3270, or by sending us your question.

Happy researching!

So, That Happened-Industrial Hemp Today

For years the law treated hemp the same as marijuana. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of “marihuana” illegal under federal law. The feds doubled down in 1970, banning all cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.

Major uses of industrial hemp
Small, E. and D. Marcus. 2002. Hemp: A new crop with new uses for North America. p. 284–326. In: J. Janick and A. Whipkey (eds.), Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.

This action was taken despite a long history of cultivation of hemp: according to The Center for New Crops & Plant Products at Purdue University, hemp has been cultivated for thousands of years. The Extension office at Penn State University reports that hemp was brought to North America in the early 1600s. By the 1700s and 1800s it was widely grown for its fiber and oil.

The door finally opened a crack in 2014, when the federal farm bill legalized industrial hemp if it was authorized under state law and cultivated for research purposes. In 2018, Senator Borrelli and 40 co-sponsors introduced Senate Bill 1098 authorizing industrial hemp propagation, processing, manufacturing, distribution, and commerce using certified hemp seed. The Legislature declared:

Leg findings

SB 1098The Legislature appropriated $500,000 to the Arizona Department of Agriculture to implement the measure and an additional $250,000 to hire three full-time employees in the agricultural plant services division. The bill passed overwhelmingly: 29 to 0 in the Senate and 56 to 3 in the House. It was signed by Governor Ducey on May 14, 2018. (Laws 2018, Chapter 287). You can follow the bill’s progress through the Legislature here. The Arizona Department of Agriculture has the responsibility for licensing, certifying hemp seeds, and regulating the concentration of TCH and pesticide law.

A little background. Hemp and marijuana both come from the Cannabis sativa species, but they are not the same. Hemp has a very low concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is what gives marijuana its psychoactive effect. Under federal and Arizona law, the concentration of THC in industrial hemp must be lower than 0.3%.  Industrial hemp can be used to produce paper, textiles, shoes, rope, carpet, and building materials such as composites and insulation materials. The fiber is valued for its length, strength, and durability. The seeds are edible and used in food products and flour. The seeds also produce oil used in food preparations, feed for animals, personal care products, and specialty industrial oils. The leaves can be used for mulch, composting, and bedding for animals.

Hemp Growing
From the February 24, 1918 Arizona Republican. Page 17.

Industrial hemp is of interest to Arizona farmers because it is a relatively water-friendly crop believed to require less water than cotton, although more studies are needed to determine its water requirements in different locations in the state. It has promise as a way for farmers to diversify their crops. Farming communities hope that it will bring economic vitality to rural areas from crop income; operations to process the fiber, seeds, oil and leaves; and retail sales of products.

In 2019, the Legislature passed a related bill requiring the Arizona Department of Agriculture to adopt rules to regulate industrial hemp in Arizona. (Laws 2019, Chapter 5).

It did. You can read the Notice of Exempt Rulemaking on our website. Scroll to page 1447 to see the new rules (page 41 of the PDF) , numbered R3-4-1001 through R3-4-1014.

More information on hemp production and an FAQ page are on the website of the Arizona Department of Agriculture.

The Death of a Territorial Newspaper Publisher

130 years ago Charles W. Beach, one-time owner and editor of the Weekly Arizona Miner in Prescott was shot by George Young.

Prescott Courier missing issuesOrdinarily we look for local coverage of an event, but in this case researchers looking to find Beach’s death in the Prescott papers may search in vain. The September 18 issue of the Arizona Weekly Journal-Miner is not on the Arizona Memory Project as it does not appear in the original microfilm! Similarly, the microfilm of the Journal Miner Daily does not contain the paper for the specific issue of September 18! It contains September 17, and 19, but Volume XXXII, No. 164, which would have chronicled Beach’s death, is also absent from its microfilm!

Prescott newspaper stacksA brief examination of our physical holdings of the Miner did not produce 1889. The reel of the Prescott Courier is also missing 1889—but it’s missing 1888 also.

Luckily territorial newspapers often picked up each others’ stories, so in this case, coverage from the Prescott Courier comes from Page 2 of the September 26 edition of the St. John’s Herald.

Beach murder herald 9-26-1899The evening of September 17th found Beach at his boarding house writing to his son in California when Young shot him with a shotgun through the window: “The greatest portion of which of the shot struck Mr. Beach under and in the left eye, knocking him over and killing him almost instantly.”  The story does not name Young—“Several persons say they saw the man who did the shooting, but as it was dark they disclaim having any knowledge as to who he was.” – but later stories did, describing the inquest.

According to William H. Lyon, in his history of Arizona Territorial Newspapers, Those Old Yellow Dog Days, Beach was no stranger to gun-play: he had exchanged shots with J.W. Leonard of the Prescott Enterprise, but, frustratingly, did not list the date.

yellow dog daysOn page 134, Lyon summarizes Beach’s life thusly: “Charley Beach of the Arizona Miner lived, and died, by the sword. An outraged subscriber once beat him with a wagon spoke, but most of the Prescott editor’s troubles arose from his flamboyant lifestyle—fleecing people of wages and property, bedding down with prostitutes and other men’s wives, and his own bigamous marriages. Not surprisingly, therefore, an enraged husband killed Beach in 1889 with a shotgun blast delivered through the window of his boardinghouse bedroom. Two wives showed up to claim his extensive property holdings.”

Beach was also involved in an earlier bloody fracas in the Third Judicial District court in Prescott on December 3, 1883, in the case of Kelsey vs. McAteer, a water dispute. The Kelsey in question was Beach’s mother-in-law, so Beach took an interest in the case.  During proceedings, Charles B. Rush, District Attorney, got involved in an argument with Attorney General Clark Churchill. Rush’s partner threw an inkwell at Churchill, and a general brouhaha ensued.

Defendant Patrick McAteer drew a large knife and attacked Beach. A man trying to separate them took a wound to his shoulder, and McAteer cut Beach in the neck. McAteer turned to attack the court reporter, none other than W.O. “Buckey” O’Neill. Beach stopped McAteer with a .38 Colt revolver. The gunfire seemed to end the fight, leaving the courtroom a mess of ink and blood.

Beach Tragedy Miner 9-25-1889

The Prescott Courier story on Beach’s death alludes to his reputation: “Like almost all men, he had faults; he had too, a great many good traits of character. No matter what his bad acts were, every brave, honorable man will condemn the cowardly manner in which he was killed.”

After his death, the weekly Miner ‘s coverage a week later—not missing!—came under the headline “The Beach Tragedy”.




Written by Chris Seggerman

How far we’ve come! A look at public health in the early years of Statehood

Arizona has long considered health issues to be a matter of local and state concern.

poolAs one example, check out the website of the Arizona Department of Health Services to see how its responsibilities reflect our times with our current hot summer temperatures.

Before the Department of Health Services, it was the State Board of Health that established policies regarding communicable diseases, unhealthful conditions, and adulterated food and medicine. You can read how the State Board of Health transitioned to today’s Department of Health Services on our State Agency Histories page.

Publications in our collection give us a look at the health issues of Arizona in the early years of the 20th Century. Many dangerous diseases they feared are almost unheard of today. Other health issues are still with us.

The 1913 Civil Code established the State and County Boards of Health, Ttitle XLI, Paragraph 4367.  The authorities of the State Board are found in Paragraph 4370. The powers of the county boards of health are similar and found at Paragraph 4367. A major concern was diseases and other risks to public health. Here’s a sampling:

4370. The board shall have power, and it shall be its duty;

*   *   *

(4.) To establish quarantine, and isolate any person affected with any contagious or infectious or malarial disease.

*   *   *

(6) To remove or cause to be removed any dead, decaying or putrid body, or any decayed, putrid or other substance that may endanger the health of persons or domestic animals.

*   *   *

(7) to condemn or cause to be destroyed any impure or diseased article of food that may be offered for sale.

(see pp. 1420 – 1422 of the PDF)

The 1913 Code also required vaccinations:

4396. Each parent or guardian, having the care, custody or control of any minor or other person shall cause such minor or other person to be vaccinated.

4397. No principal, superintendent or teacher of any school and no parent or guardian of any minor child shall permit any child having scarlet fever, diphtheria, small pox, whooping cough, measles or any other dangerous, infectious or contagious disease or any child residing in any house in which such disease exists, or has recently existed, to attend any public or private school until the local board of health shall have given permission therefor.

(see p. 1427 of the PDF)

helioStatute required the State Superintendent of Public Health to submit a biennial report. These reports offer a view of the health issues of the era.

For example, the 1913-1914 report discusses an important problem they faced: tuberculosis. The Superintendent reported that the number of deaths from tuberculosis for the year ending on June 30, 1913 was 785, a number practically unchanged over four years. The Superintendent remarked on the influx of tuberculosis patients and the burden they imposed on the State:

For many years tuberculars have been coming to Arizona because of the superior advantages of climate for the treatment of this disease, but the
indiscriminate manner in which these people have been sent to Arizona in the past, the voluntary coming of many who have not been professionally advised, many of them indigents when they arrive, and many of them becoming so soon after their arrival, has placed an economic burden on the State that is not to be lightly considered. Many of these have never been instructed by competent persons, as to the proper manner in caring for themselves…and the consequences are that a great many people of Arizona are becoming infected with tuberculosis, spread by the careless and ignorant consumptive strangers….
(see page 8 of the PDF)

polioThe 1931-1932 report includes a chart showing the deaths between 1922 and 1931 from typhoid, smallpox, diphtheria, meningitis, and poliomyelitis, among other diseases that are virtually eradicated today (see page 20 of the PDF). Other portions of the report include a terrifying list of life-threatening diseases that were not uncommon at the time (pp. 22-25 of the PDF). It also reports on sewage issues, milk sanitation, and health concerns regarding the increase in the number of swimming pools (pp. 28-35 of the PDF).

The same document includes criminal laws that were passed to identify public health violations. Those included dumping an animal carcass into a river or road in common use (Sec. 386, at page 14 of the PDF), failing to maintain a privy in a healthful condition (Sec. 387, at p. 15 of the PDF), or adulterating or diluting food, drink, drug or spirituous liquor  (Sec. 389 at p.15 of the PDF).

Many of the public health laws in this era were enacted as regulations. Regulations identified communicable diseases and required physicians to report them to the local Board of Health:

Sec. 1.  The following diseases are hereby declared to be communicable and dangerous to the public health, viz.: Bubonic plague, chicken pox, cholera (Asiatic or epidemic), dengue, diptheria (diptheritic croup, diptheritic sore throat), German measles, hydrophobia (rabies), leproxy, malarial fever, measles, relapsing fever, scarlet fever (scarletina,m scarlet rash), small pox (variola, varioloid), typhoid fever, typhus fever, whooping cough, yellow fever, infantile paralysis, epidemic cerebrospinal meningitis, and tuberculosis….

(see pp. 16-17 of the PDF)

tucson medicalThe regulations specified the diseases that required Absolute Quarantine (which could be lifted only by an authorized agent of the Board of Health), Modified Quarantine, and those subject to special instructions. All required a placard to be posted on the house. (pp. 18-23 of the PDF)

By 1929, the Regulations removed the requirement of immunization.

Sec. 2693. Compulsory vaccination abolished; minor may be excluded from school.

No minor child shall be subjected to compulsory vaccination without the consent of the parent or guardian having the care, custody or control of such minor. Provided, however, that no minor child shall be permitted to attend any public school in any school district in the state of Arizona during the period in which a small-pox epidemic may be prevalent in said school district unless said minor child shall have been first vaccinated.

Sec. 2694. Child having contagious disease not to attend school.

The principal, superintendent or teacher of any school, or parent or guardian of any minor child shall not permit a child having any dangerous, infectious or contagious disease, or any child residing in any house in which such disease exists, or has recently existed, to attend any public or private school until the local board of health shall have given permission therefor.

(Pages 12-13 of the PDF)

publichealthThe Regulations published in 1929 also established a new Article 4 addressing Pure Food Control with definitions of food, adulteration, and mislabeling. They established procedure for hearings, authorized the sheriff to seize products in violation, and established penalties. (Sections 2701 – 2722 at pp.15-23 of the PDF).

Arizonans in 1913 faced very different dangers from disease than we do today. Browse the Arizona Memory Project to learn more!

Feeling grateful for penicillin, which was discovered in 1928 and became widely available in 1942. I’ve decided not to mention the sniffles I woke up with today. 😮