The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1900-08-31
FoRREsr ON FnYNN,s ATTITUDE.

good work showing up tlynns follies'
A few days since The LEADER printed
an interview with Mr.. Forrest in ref
erence to Flynn's initial speech. Now
Forrest, who has decided TO take a
deep interest 10 this campaign, in a
letter says;
Look at Flynn's Inconsistency in
his initial Speech" says Forrest, who
quotes as follows from Flynn's speech
:" Il would like one thing and that is
to have state we would all feel
proud Of, and let me say that my hon
est judgment is that Oklahoma and
the Indian territory must be one
state AT another point, while he at
tempts TO overthrow Democratic good
faith in the declaration Of its platform
fsvoring immediate statehood for Ok
lahoma and Indian Territory Mr..
Flynn expostulates in this language:
Now, fellow citizens, let me say
this to you about statehood; When
anyone tells you they are for state-
hood but don't want statehood unless
it includes Indian Territory, ask them
what they are going to do with the
agreement recently made with the
Choctaws and Chickasaws Of the In
dian territory, where the government
agrees that it will not change their
status or lines for eight years to come.
Our proposition is this: We are for
statehood with the Indian Territory If
we car get ~ We are for statehood
with anything, any kind of a bound
airy that we can get first TO help our
selves
"Now, if it is not possible for the
Democrats to get what they demand
on account of entangling stipulations
and agreements between this Dawes
commission and these tribee, how is
Mr.. Flynn to get the very same thing
which he admits must bs the ultimat-
um-single statehood? If the Demo-
Gratis do not hope for statehood, as he
asserts, inside of eight years, how can
he hope for the same thing, which he
admits must be sooner than the same
period? In his speech at Guthrie he
professed to admit that he was W illing
TO take in the Indian Territory. IF
can pass the bill taking them in 1 will
it, he says. But who can have conf.
dence in this assertion? Over at South
McAlester few days ago he told a
reporter and some people there diff
ferent thing. He said:
"'I am going after statehood for
Oklshoma next; we are entitled to it
and don't intend TO let up until we
get it. Unlike most of my people l
am not in favor Of including your ter
ritory in my statehood scheme. l do
not think it would be expedient or an
advantage to the state, and l am not
in favor of Congressman Little's plan
either, which is to partition to the In
dian Territory out between Oklaho-
ma and Arkansas
''If IL were not a matter of history,
better established than the suihenti-
city Of the Pentateuch, that Flynn has
always been and is now opposed to
single statehood, one might have
grave doubts as TO where he stands, il
these conflicting assertions were to be
depended upon TO settle the question.
At Guthrie he says he will try for a
thing he says at McAlester he opposes
For heavens sake where is he?
"F'ynn knows as well Gs any school
boy in the territory knows that the
establishment OF a state lire around
the Indian Territory would not in the
slightest degree alter the status mol
the lines of the Five Tribes, any
more thar the line of Oklahoma
around the Usage Nation alters the
status or the 'lir es'o of that tribe. The
tribal autonomy of the Indian nations
is already thing Of the past, except
In name. The government of the
United States has no un broken agree
ment with them further than it's ob
legations to protect their property
rights. From that it will not depart
but that the people of these tribes
must become citizens of the United
States and the territory Owned by
them brought into the limits of state
lines, is as inevitable as the flow OF
Niagara. The judicial and executive
authorities of the United States have
long exercised the functions OF author
ity in them and more recently legisla