The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-12-13
P.AN Of Mr.. ANES
He FavOrS an Immediate Con-
Stituti0naI Convention
LOGIC OF 1T SET FORTH
Certain PreIiminarieS VIII
Insure Full Discussion.
LOGIC OF 1T SET FORTH

Guthrie. o. T., Dec. &c. B. Ames Of
Oklahoma City. who claims to be the
originator Of the South 1IcAlester con
venuon, is in favor Of constitutional
convention to form constitution for a
state to be formed Of the two territories.
He argues for his constitutional project
as follows:
st believe the best way Of getting a
hearing. and Of having our case present
ed is by means Of a constitutional con
venton Let this convention formulate
a constitution, present 1t to congress and
ask for admission as one state under that
constitution. When this is done we are
at any rate sure Of a fun discussion of
the question in Washington, and do not
know of any other way by which we can
be assured that congress viii give a fair
consideration to our rights. There are
various objections which are raised TO
this plan, some of which are supported
by sound reason, but the situation is such
that no plan can be suggested which is
free from all objection and it is just
question of adopting the most eficac.ous
plan.
"In the first place, the opponents Of
this plan say there is no provision for de-
fraying the expenses Of the constitution
al convention. The mere fact that the
people Of these Two territories are 50
deeply i'm earnest as to hold a consttu-
tional convention at private expense
would be one of the most powerful argu-
ments which could be presented that a
change Of present conditions is necesz airy.
and that statehood should be granted
Then, TOO. it is customary for congress
10 make an appropriation to defray the
COSTS Of constitutional conventions when
they are held pursuant TO an enabling
act. and if we could secure admission un-
der such a constitution, congress would
doubtless make an appropriation to cover
the expense of the convention.
In the second place # is objected that
there is a treaty with the Indian tribes
guaranteeing that their lands viii not be
Included within The limits of any state
or te-rilory without other consent The
supreme court Of the United States has
expressly decided that this provision,
passed in 1892, is subject to repeal, and
that the act of congress including the
Usage and ansas reservations within the
limits Of Oklahoma. territory superse lei
the original treaty I do not believe there
Is any legal objection to immediate single /
statehood
There Is no doubt but that If the peo- 1
rle of these two territories want single /
statehood on a fair basis. giving the In
dian Territory it's right to be heard in
the organization of the state, that they
VIII have TO take the initial steps. Our
delegate 90 congress has already ex-
pressed himself as favoring the bin intro
duced by Senator Fairbanks, which is
statehood for Oklahoma alone, and then
favorlng the annexation OF the Indian /
TERI tory piecemeaL That viii be the
plan which viii be pushed In congress, /
unless the people take the matter into Z
their own hands. Such a plan is mani /
testify unfair 20 the Indian Territory and /
would create at The beginning Of our a. /
reer as a state, sectional lines and ami /
mostly. the cost and burden Of which /
cannot be estimated
"The opponents of single statehood ar
que that Oklahoma would have to bear /
the burden eff taxation owing TO the fact /
THAT Indian lands are not taxable In T
reply TO this I would say that there are
certain fixed charges incident to the gov I
erament of state regardless Of its area +.
that the costs of a state government is /
not ia proportion TO the area of the
state. For instance. e would probably T.
cost only o TO 50 per cent more TO run .
state composed of both territories than /.
it would O. state composed Of Oklahoma F.
alone Now then. we consider that The