Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-01-05
DAILY POST. INTELLIGENceR
TEE TWO BILLS.

TEE TWO BfLLs.
The Seattle PosT ISTKLLHsEscER a.
last enters a feeble protest against foos
ees' unwarrau'ed restTissIoas N MS
admission biIi. bat tres 20 smooth tie
matter over By obisctIng 70 Dotph's Dill
alao on the ground that it, limit for TIE
STATE debt IA soo smaii-P0rs TScsssnd
AygtIi.
The Posi- -IxTuLIgKScKz did lot
mean its protest against Senator FooF
hees' bill to be feeble, and II does not
understand in Just What respect u ~2s
so. Indeed, j, vas under the imprss-
sion that IL had taken pretty radical
erouad against the restrictions in q7es-
tion. IL certainly does not nv 70
smooth the matter over by obieetine
TO Dolph's bill also" i, objects to
Dolph's bill for precisely the same rsa-
son that il objects 10 that Of VOORHEES,.
The stupidity must Be colossal which
urevents a man from seeing that the
objections which apply to one OF these
bills spply With equal force % the other
Beth assume for Congress the right 10
prescribe conditions for tie admission
of a State Which are totally unvarrant-
ed by the Consultation and totally an
justified by the circumstances Of the
present. casa. In prinsiple II makes no
difference whether Dolph's bill places
the limit Of the State debt at tvo han
Ared thousand dollars or at tventy 1--we
cents There should be no limit At all
II she people Of Washington are not
able TO regulate their own financial
affairs, they are not q, for the citizen
ship which the passage Of the bill would
eonfer. IL they are o. for such citizen
ship, there Is no necessity for the re
ssricsion. In either case the ball 10 faulty
and should not pass in its present. form.
The Posr-IsrELIeKxcKBh has no OBJ
lection 10 the nature of tbs restrictions
which are found In tue Voorhees, and
not in the Dolph bill. 10 fact, it be-
lieves the provisions IN question to be
xiss and proper. and hopes to see them
included in the State constitution when
il shall be adopted Bat 1t does object
20 thar pressuce in an enabling act.
II believes that the people should be
lsft free 10 form their own Constitution,
subject emily to the restriction that u
shall not sonfiis, with the constitution
of the United States. and that the gov
eminent founded upon IL shall be re-
publican in form. II. after the passage
Of an enabling act, the people wish to
include these provisions in their COAST
sation. 90 much the better ba, they
should not be compelled 10 90 include
them. Such compassion IL repugnan'
TO American ideas of government.
1t lie 10 b hoped tina. the 4rgss will
consider tse principle invslyed--and
involved equally in both hills. Wash
inssen should enter the Union as an
equal or not 81 all. Restrictions un-
known TO the other States shoald not be
sArown aroand Der. At the very
threshold Of the Union she should not
be deprived Of cue OF the first rights
guaranteed by republican government
the right Of the people 10 form their
own constitution. Both bills do cor
template Just such an interferenes and
both are accordingly faulty. The Post
ISrxLIIaERcER is not irving 10 smooth
she matter over" in the least by object
ING 10 both. In fact it, objection, II 4
applies to one, must logically apply &c
the other. The principle is 50 broad
and 30 clear that one would think thai
even the Arg,as eoald comprehend it.