Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1889-01-11
Statehood.
% Is 1T DESIRABLE WITH OUR PRESENT
ROrNDARIES2"

BOUNDARIES!
ED. WASHINGTON STANDARD:
In the STANDARD of January 4th
there appears a well-written article add
vocating the division OF Washington
Territory and admitting it ultimately
into the Union as two States.
Mr.. Stuart's objections to our enter
ing the sisterhood of States with the
present boundaries, seem to be based
upon the difference of climate OF
Eastern and Western Washington and
the unlikeness of the industries of the
two sections, requiring dissimilar
legislation; the laws that are adapt
ed to Eastern Washington being not
good for the Western half, or injur-
ious thereto.
Let us examine this question and
see if Mr.. Stuart's position is a tena-
BILE one:
Wherein does Western Washington
require different laws from Eastern?
Eastern Washington is an agricultur-
al, mining, stockraising and lumber
ing region. What else is Western
Washington? Eastern Washington
may demand laws to aid in irrigation,
but what harm can q general law upon
the subject of irrigation do to Western
Washington So far as we are con-
cerned, it would be Il dead letter upon
our statute books, doing us no harm
and aiding those for whom it was in
tended. We need laws regulating
mining; that is, general mining Inv,
and can't laws be passed regulating
all of our mining industries that will
fall alike and with equal benefit on
the mines OF both Eastern and West
ern Washington.
Eastern Washington raises sheep;
so do we. Can't we have general
sheep law, without injury to the
sheep industry in either Eastern or
Western Washington? And if not,
why not?
We need protective laws for our
fish and game. Will not general
laws do fer either side of the Cas-
cades?
Mr.. Editor, these are vital questions
and should be we'll considered by the
coming trainers of our constitution,
and if in their judgment, different
legislation, on account of difference
of climate and difference in industries,
is required for Eastern than for West
ern Washington, the constitution
should be so framed as to allow of the
required elasticity and variety of laws,
that all parts of the new State can re-
ceive equal benefits at the hands of
our legislators.
General laws can be passed govern
ing our civil and criminal procedure
without injustice to any portion of the
new State, and the different interests,
if there will be any in Eastern or
Western Washington, requiring spec
ial legislation can be provided for.
Texas is large State with many
and diverse interests, yet the people
in the glorious old Lone-Star State are
against division almost to a man.
California has greater diversity of
climate and a greater variety of inter-
ests than we have, and there, the same
as in Texas, the people are against
division of their State, few scheming
and designing politicians excepted.
would oppose division for several
reasons. 1t would mean higher taxa
ton and lessening of our National
influence, as large, populous and
wealthy State has q much greater Ma
tional influence than small one.
This new State will need Congress
sional assistance, both east and west
of the Cascade Mountains. Then let
us not only retain our present size, but
secure, if possible, the panhandle Of
Idaho, for by this means we will be
populous enough to give us a strong
delegation in Congress, and wealthy
enough to demand the National assis-
lance and the National attention our
geographical position demands.
Let us into the Union rs State,
with the panhandle of Idaho annexed
and with Olympia the seat of govern
ment for the whole, and our future
prosperity and greatness "a a State
will be assured. DC. LEWIS.