Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1882-10-30
The Annexation Scheme.
Boise Statesman. ]

Boise stasesnan.l
We are quite aware that the people
in North Idaho desire to be annexed
to Washington Territory when it is
admitted as State. With them it is
almost unanimous feeling. In this
portion Of the Territory there is very
little interest IN the question. Meth
er political party saw fit, at either Of
the conventions, to pass resolution
on the question, or notice it in their
platforms. At the last session of the
Legislature, q resolution of some sort
was introduced in the House by
Northern member favoring division,
which passed; but it was never intro
duced in the Council and of course
did not pass that body. Several
years ago both Houses Of the Legis-
lature passed a resolution in favor of
division, or rather, in favor of letting
the three northern counties go of to
Washington Territory. After that,
when Mr.. Fem, of North Idaho, was
nominated by the Democrats, it was
understood that he would get the
unanimous support Of the North, on
the ground that he was North Idaho
man and favored division. In this
way he forced this issue upon the peo-
pie of Southern Idaho, and lost good
many Democratic Observation-Disclosures
he was elected. In both former can
vases Ainslie opposed division, but
with the people Of South Idaho it had
no political significance, and Ainslie
neither gained nor lost votes on that
question. In this canvass Mr.. Ain
slie announces himself unequivocally
opposed to division, and goes stark
mad because the people will not fall
in and vote for him on this question,
instead of Singiser. From this history
of the question which, by all who
know anything about it at all, will be
admitted to be debatable question,
and outside Of politics, at least in
Southern Idaho. The developments
and commercial interests Of the Ter
ritory are not reciprocal, and the rail-
roads building in the northern portion
and in the southern portion, show
conclusively that our relations, small
as they have been, are being severed
more and more. 1t is hardly possible
to suppose that any railroad will con-
meet the two sections for a quarter
Of century, if ever. No reasonable
man can ask the north to stay with us
forever, without any hope of our COM
mercial relations ever becoming mu.
tual. Those who have opposed divis.
ion. have based their opposition on
the hope that the development of the
Territory would in some way unite
our interests. This hope is virtually
dispelled, and the man who cannot
see it is blind to the progress and adj
vancement of both sections. The
policy of fighting against division on
the ground that the capital will be re-
moved from Boise City, is purely
selfish one. In doing SO we virtually
admit that we have no advantages in
our location, and that the capital ought
to be removed if division takes place.
half the capitals OF the States are To-
Gated nearer one side than Boise City
will be if the three northern counties
are cut off. The policy of holding on
to North Idaho in order to hold the
capital is very poor argument in ia
vor Of justice or right. 1t is quite
possible that some sage-brush town
site man will want the capital and
make propositions to move it, but his
argument and his showing for q loca-
ton would be about as good Is Ore
gon could wish in favor of a central
location in the Cascade range of
mountains, instead of the Willame tie
Valley. We do not anticipate that
Ainslie will get up any very great
scare about the removal of the capital
and thereby win to himself either
Democrats or Republicans. If he wins
any votes on the division question it
will be by going to North Idaho and
convincing the people of that section
that it is to their interest to remain in
the Territory.