The St. Johns herald., 1894-02-22

nowthat Statehood agitation has aroused and brought the good and bad elements into strong contrast.
 The pending Statehood bill provides for ushering Arizona into the Union without a ratifying vote by the people of the Territory, forcing them to accept a State Constitution formed two years ago by thirty irresponsible men who represented the worst element of the non-taxpaying, office-seeking popula- ton. They drafted Constitution which is cloak to the prevailing vices of frontier Territory, throwing the doors open to interruptions landgrabbing cor porations and inviting bankruptcy by allowing any community to issue bonds on the vote of a majority of the floating population. It makes possible under 1 Statehood a repetition of the fragrant publicfraud that have been perpetrated ever since Arizona was organized as a Territory thirty years ago.
 The convention held at Phoenix Nov. 27, 1893, framed memorial to Congress, as plea for Statehood which is so gross perversion of facts that if the same figures were presented to eastern capi- talists to induce investment they would l D0 ROOu CAUSE TUT AO' WI spiracy to defraud or obtain money un- der false pretenses.
 The above paragraphs are an ex- tract from a special correspondent to the Chicago Tribune, written from Phoenix, and dated January 30th last. The article is illustrated by photographs of Gov. Hughes, Judge Fleury and c. NJ. Bruce. It is perfectly natural, judging from the tenor of the article, to suppose that these gentlemen were cogniz- ant of the gist of the article, before it was sent east for publication, if not the instigators of it, and should be held responsible for it's sayings and it's probable effects. It is in- geniously written, with few facts sandwiched between a great many gross interpretations, to give a semblance of truth to the whole.
 The first sentence of the second paragraph is fair sample of the misstaiements made throughout the entire article. The constitutional convention was composed of twen- ty-two delegates selected from the body of the entire territory. Twen- ty-one of the twenty-two delegates were present and participated in the proceedings of that body, When their work was completed 1t was submitted to the people of the ter ritory for their approval or rejec- ton, and their work was pronoun- ced good by an overwhelming ma jority. If the people who expect to live under that constitution are satisfied with It, what right has this itinerant correspondent to kick? How does it concern him?
 For the information of the Fri bune's correspondent, and that tn e people of the territory may know whom he stigmatizes as 'irresponsi- ble men who represented the worst element of the non-taxpaying, of fice-seeking population, I've append a list of the men who framed the constitution, Following are the names: w. A. Rowe, H. N. Alexan- der, J. w. Anderson, Alonzo Bailey, w. H. Barnes, B M Crawford, Geo. w. Cheney, Thomas Davis, Foster Dennis, Thomas Gates, w. A. Hart, John Hunt, William Herring, F. II. Hereford, T. c. Jordan, Art McDon- aid, T. G Norris, A. NJ. Patterson, Marcus A. Smith, Nj. H. Williams, J. F. Wilson.
 If the members of the constltu- tional convention can be called Cir responsible men," where under the sun can any responsible men be found? It must be remembered that these delegates were selected from each county in the territory, the basis of representation being the same as to the lower house of our legislature. They represented no faction of any political party, but were chosen on account of their ability to perform the duties for which they were selected. Then for this imported correspondent to make the assertion that they were