Anadarko daily democrat. [volume] (Anadarko, Oklahoma) 1901-190?, 1902-10-28

vide a school fund for the people OF the
Indian Territory, and the democratic
platform demands that a school fund
be provided for that territory, either
in lands or other resources. Under the
recent treaty, enough lands are to be
sold out OF which the government can
very readily provide n school endow-
ment fund. Under the recent treaties,
the mineral lands are to be sold and
the government can out OF these lands
provide n school endowment fund. Or
the government can make n direct ap-
preparation in money for this purpose.
The democratic party says that this
will be done. That is just, fair and
right. MIR. Mcclure says, hSwdfer.
that 1t will not be done. but in tthe
same breath Mr. Mcclure says h9 "a.
vors ultimate single statehood. sMr
Mcclure is, therefore, in favor Of the
division of our school lands If any d.
vision is implied by single statehood.
II the democratic position is sound.
Of course that settles the question md
there Is no harm done. But II, on
the other hand the democratic post
tion is unsound and congress would
not make any provision for the
school children of the Indian Terri
tory, still assert that there is no loss
to the people of Oklahoma by reason
Of single statehood. and the facts and
! figures prove It.
| The present revenue derived from
the leasing OF our school lands Is $685.
600 In the event OF single statehood
in order to equaliZe rents from our
school land, conceding that the people
of the Indian Territory have as many
children as we of Oklahoma (Which is.
not true) we would have to raise by
state taxation S225OO0 in addition to
the current expenses assert to you
without fear OF successful contradic-
ton, that an additional $225, 900 can be
raised by state levy for school pur-
poses, which would be added to our
rentals from the school land and
thus provide a school fund for distri-
button, so that there will not be the
loss of dollar to the school children
OF Oklahoma, aud that still. after the
addition OF this 1925. 900 for special
school funds the state levy for taxes
will be less with single statehood than
would be the levy with statehood for
Oklahoma alone
Let us go back to the figures. We
now raise for territorial expenses with
a ~ mill levy $4,000. We can safe
ly estimate that would be the cost of
a state government for oklahoma
Let us include the Indian territory
within the limits of the same state
and add $4,000 for the additional cost
of the state administration. Now add
to that $225,000 to be raised as q spe-
cial school fund to offset the rents
we are now deriving from our school
lands, and we have a total of $780,
900 necessary to be raised With single
statehood, instead of having $72,000,,
900 of assessable property. we would
have S132 100000 of assessable propl
erty. In order to raise $840, 900 wa
would have to make a levy of 6.4
: mills, which Is IL mills less than the
i present levy in Oklahoma for territor!
ial purposes, thus making a saving on
+ the $4,000, 900 of Oklahoma assessment
t Of IL mills, or $40 200, so that, IL with
$ single statehood we make special
d levy and raise enough money to equal
z lie the rents from our school lands, wa
, still have a lower rate of taxation
: for the state government, by IL Mills
+ But we can make some allowances for
S possible errors in these estimates and
e figure that 1t Is necessary with single
. statehood in order TO pay the extra
= expenses of the state government and
n raise a school fond thai we should
J, have a total state revenue OF 81 1,000,-
j OO0 which Is allowing nearly 5000, 900
i for contingencies, and then what do
!. we find? With the total assessed val
J. uation of both territories combined
d we can raise $1000,000 with levy of
@ ~ mills, which is exactly the levy
{ we are now subject to.
l. /, therefore, assert that this school
!. land division is bugaboo and that
t the republican politicians are trying to
0 scare the people with 1t without accu-
= racy of truth or honest regard for the
O facts in the case.
e In the fourth place they tell us
Y that we can not admit the Indian Ter.
Q ritory to statehood until its lands ara
r allotted and that this will take several
h years In reply to this, beg leave to
II inquire OF my republican friends,
e whether the lands in the Usage Ma
.. ton are allotted, whether the Ponca
p and Otoe reservations are allotted?
Il Why Is 1t necessary to wait until
IS after allotment to make a state out Of
n the Indian territory? Isn't 1t true
n that every Western state has beeen
admitted with Indian reservations In
n it? II it has been done in the past,
q why, then, can it not be done nowl
e This proposition, like all the others
l. is unsound. 1t is not necessary to
Is wait until after the allotment to ere
g ate state government for the Indian
y territory, and there is absolutely nc
q reson, from a legal, commercial OF
n political view point, why We should
1t not have immediate single statehood
Ie What Election Of Cross Mean.
Ie or course, it is true that the settle
,e ment Of this question is in the hands
Is Of congress and that our people car
a not control that body. But the elec
is tion Of Cross is a declaration to that
ID body that we want single statehood
.y Congress will surely pay some atten
ID tlon to the wishes Of half million In