Arizona republican., 1901-11-17
PHOENIX. ARIZONA, NOV. T., 1901.
The Los Angeles Times has finally

ANGELES last Friday devotes SOLOMON most of it's editorial
 page to a discussion of the statehood question. It has an able regular correspondent stationed at Phoenix. whom it depends for all ordinary matters of news. But il an- nounces that ''solely for the purpose Of getting at the bedrock facts of the case an inquiry was addressed to a resident of Tucson. The Tucson cor respondent makes a long review, md reaches three conclusions: CD That taxes are too high; (2) that the ex- pense of a state government you'd be burdensome, and (3) that the people really do not want statehood. He arrives at the latter conclusion from the fact that the republican caraidAte for delegate made the campaign of late year on a statehood platform and was defeated by 1.0oJ votes.
 Evidently the Times knew the par son to whom it was applying for in- formation, for it is safe to say that there is not another intelligent resi- dent of the territory who is opposed
  taxation. The Republican has shO.S n over and over again that the nomiiiiliy high tax rate is due to laxity in the system of assessments whereby much property is assessed at ridiculousiy low valuation while millions of wealth are not taxed at all. and that 1t is evil dent this evil is not likely to be cured until we have state legislatures, in which the general public would take shown that under statehood our re sources would be developed so rapidly that the burden of taxes would soon amount to nothing. The bagatelle of an added cost for a state government is a point not worth considering. The Times accepts at face value the state ments of it's correspondent and closes with this brilliant paragraph:
 The statehood question in Arizona is no new thing. Twenty years ago they were discussing the same prob- lem. and then. as now. there was a great difference of opinion among the people of the territory. Then, as now. the statehood boomers made noise as disproportionate to their numbers
 
 rnoonlit mesa. Perhaps, in course of time. some of these fiery. untamed Arizona "gernalists" may realize that a man is not necessarily an enemy of statehood for Arizona because he entertains different views as to the most practicable manner in which that result may be accomplished The Arizona editors shout too much and too incoherently.
 It Is, of course, wholly immaterial whether the Times editorially favors or opposes statehood Its advice is that we wait until the achievement of its pet hobby, national irrigation a possible consummation of the dim future and to wait for which would mean that Arizona is not to be a com petitor of southern California in the time of this generation.-the real milk in the Times cocoanut.
 But when the Los Angeles oracle states as a. matter of news that the people of this territory rejected state hood by their votes in the congressional election, and that now there is a great difference of opinion among the people of the territory" on the question, it is
 
 very damaging to statehood interests. There is not vestige of truth in its as- sertion. The residents of Arizona are united for statehood as no other people ever were united on any question before congress. The territory went demo- cratic at the last election because the silver question was thought to be still a live issue. and the voters were made to believe that Bryan would be elected and that the best prospects for success lay in being in line with an incoming democratic administration. Democratic speakers stated from every stump that statehood was not an issue because every voter favored it It is to be re- gretted. of course, that the voters took the view they did. But it was no reflec- tion on their intelligence. as the Times may be quick to reply. More than six millions of intelligent Americans voted the same way. And now that the silver question is settled finally, we believe that Arizona is so remarkably close politically as to make it impossible to predict how it would go at the first state election. The republicans would have at least an even chance of carry ing it.
 The attempt of the Times to make stctshood and the arid land question q single issue is not worthy of it's intelli- gence.
 The Indianapolis Sentinel sEilfuli.' quotes the Los Angeles paper against itself in these words:
 We quoted the Los Angeles Times