Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1901-09-17
STATEHOOD FOR
NEW MEXICO.
An Open Letter Replying to the
Editor of the White Oaks
Eagle.
SOME SOUND ARGUMENTS
Aside From the Undoubted Right Of New
Mexico to Statehood, 1t Would Bring
immigration, Capital Develop
ment and Greater Prosperity.
Editor White Oaks Eagle, White Oaks,
New Mexico:

r Editor White oaks Eagle, White oak
: New Mexico:
Albuquerque, Sept. II, 1901.-Sir:
notice that you took occasion to put
lish my letter to you of a recent dat
asking for copy of your newspaper i
which you took grounds against state
hood for our territory, and that in
stead of sending me the paper request
ed, you publish new editorial on tn
subject setting forth your views.
have no objection to your action, bu
as you devoted a whole page of you
paper to the subject, and my repl!
must of necessity, condense how
may, be longer than your letter. I take
the liberty of replying by this oper
easier than you could print it, ant
anyway the subject is of territorial
importance, and should not be dis
| cussed in secret or in newspapers OF
less than the largest territorial cir
culation.
You are right. / do doubt that the
| opponents of statehood for New Mexico
under present conditions really have
any cause for so opposing admission" "
In fact, know they can have no tena-
BILE argument to support their opposi-
ton, and I further know that they
can be actuated only by lack of
knowledge, or narrow minded and
unjust prejudice.
The whole tenor of your editorial, in
dicates that you are afraid to trust
manage their own affairs Then why
don't you go somewhere else to live,
where the people are in your opinion
good enough for you to associate with
think the people of New Mexico will
endeavor to worry along without your
valuable journalistic services. 1 do
not mean to be impudent about the
matter at all. I frankly confess, that
I can only judge others by myself, and
il thought as you do about the people
of New Mexico, I would avail myself
of my great American privilege of go
ing somewhere else. 1t is un-American,
and contrary to the spirit of ,our in
stitutions for any man or set of men,
to deny to large majority of their
fellow citizens the boon and birthright
of self government, when that govern
ment Is purposed to be carried on un-
der proper constitution strictly re-
publican in form and substance. A
person who does so deny that right to
his fellow citizens, while still continu-
ing to live among them and making at
out of them, to say the least, has his
gall with him.
You say you are opposed to state
hood, because it has not been and can
not be shown that New Mexico will be
benefited thereby. I take issue with
this statement in toto; but first let me
say, that a man who does not value
the franchise and citizenship rights of
himself and his children, above his own
or anybody's mere money and property
rights, is not the high minded and
broad minded sort of man out of
which American states are made. He
has pawnbroking mentality devoid of
patriotism. He does not seem to real
ize what a Maverick" a territory is;
that it is no part of the United States;
that congress can either annul all it's
laws or prevent it from enacting any
laws at all; that it could If it wanted to
appoint every official within the terri
tory from the outside; that it can pass
any sort Of tariff law it wants to for
territory, and could even cede the
whole place away to a foreign country
in settlement Of a war or for a mere
money price. Neither does he appear
to realize that the people of a territory
have no supreme voice in anything:
that they never vote for a president or
member of congress- that they take
no part in the policies Of their coun-
try; that their children born while the
place is still territory are probably
ineligible to the presidency, because
such children are not natural born"
citizens of the United States; within
the meaning of the national constitu-
ton; in fine that the people of terri
tory are political nondescripts with a
flag without constitution behind it,
and are forever subject to the neglect
or the whims of a national congress in
voice or vote.
You say that money can be obtained
now for any legitimate enterprise in
the territory, where dividends are rea-
sonably certain. In answer to this I
will say that while this may be true in
a measure, we do not and cannot get
as much money into territory as we
could into state. am receiving let
ters by the dozen daily from people in
all parts of the territory, and one of
the reasons many Of them give for de-
string statehood, is that they have
known of so many enterprises falling
through, just because of territorial
laws, and because of the restrictive
alien act. One writer who is a man
that knows whereof he speaks, cal
culates that the loss to the territory in
the last ten years has not been less
than $2O,0OO.O0O from these two causes
alone. AS a proof of how the people at
large In the United States are preju-
diced against territorial form of gov
ernment, however unjust the prejudice
may be, I will state that a few weeks
ago was in the city of Denver, which
found full to overfowing with capi-
talists. promoters, speculators and in
(Continued on 8 ecoud Page)
si-A 3