The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-01-12
SHAWNEE RESOLUTION STANDS

SHAWNEE RESOLUTION STANDS
There appears to be as much confu-
sion over opinions in regard to the
statehood convention at Oklahoma City
as there was confusion in the conven-
ton itself.
The Eagle will, as 1t sees the matter
| itself, endeayor to explain the matter
! briefly. In December a statehood con-
vention was called at Shawnee. 1t
gave old Oklahoma a greater represent
alton than new Oklahoma, that is, the
! Strip. The citizens of Pawnee county
called another and later convention at
Oklahoma City (for January s. in which
all the Strip counties were given full
! representation.
Sidney Clarke, chairman of the ter
ritorial statehood committee, issued an
other call predicated on this Pawnee
call, and this Clarke call was exactly
similar 10 the Pawnee call except in
this-it admitted delegates from the
| ChickaSaw nation. The Clarke call
gave the Strip full representation, as
did the Pawnee call.
1t was resolved at the Shawnee con-
yention that a state should be made of
| Oklahoma at once, and that boundaries
should be fixed as congress thinks best.
This meant, of course, that Oklahoma
should be made a state, and as each
| nation was ready, it should be added
to Oklahoma. This resolution was pass
ed by a small margin. The Pawnee
| call, undisturbed and unamended,
would have probably resulted in a
similar resolution at Oklahoma City,
passed by a small margin. But Clarke
! claimed that the Pawnee call was not
official Hence he issued his call
Now his call, admitted the delegates
from the Chickasaw nation, and the
small margin by which the double
statehood men had won at Shawnee
was supposedly wiped out.
Last Wednesday that statehood con-
vention at Oklahoma City met. A
gentleman began reading the Pawnee
call. Another jumped to his side and
began to read the Clarke call. The
astounding chaos that was precipitated
has been fully described in the Eagles
special dispatches.
Now the double statehood men claim
that it was better that that conven-
ton did not take any action; and the
single statehood men claim the same
thing. Or in other words both sides
are claiming a victory.
Which really has the best of it?
Without any inclination TO prejudice
anyone or to form snap judgment in
the matter, it may be said that the
double statehood men have the best of
it. Why? Because, of the only recent
and duly organized statehood conven-
ton in oklahoma, the double statehood
men secured possession, and their ac-
ton, taken deliberately, will be receiv-
ed as an authoritative expression of the
people Of Oklahoma. The congress
cannot receive anything from the Ok
lahOma City convention as authorita-
tive.
OF course, it is questionable whether
the action of the Shawnee convention,
or the non-action at the Oklahoma City
convention will have any effect on con-
gresS. one way or the other. Congress
will do about as it pleases in the mat
ter, save for this. 1t will listen to a
delegation from the Shawnee conven-
ton on the resolution from the Shaw
nee convention. 1t will have nothing
TO listen to from the Oklahoma City
convention.
Waving the question Of whether it
would be profitable or sensible for Ok
lahoma TO have statehood now, If the
people have made up their minds for
immediate statehood, there appears to
be nothing particularly wrong or vi
ciouS in the Flynn statehood bill. This
bill creates a state of Oklahoma and
makes it mandatory of that state 10 add
the Indian nations TO that state when
SO ordered by congress. This will. in
the end, mean a big state of oklahoma.
and a state when Oklahoma will not
be numbered by a mass of INDECENT In
dianS as it would be now If the two
territories should be admitted as a
single state
Everyone agrees that the Oklahoma
City convention was a fiasco. but TO
argue that the action of the Shawnee
convention is in any way invalidated
because of the row at Oklahoma Civ
is illogical