The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-12-21
Judge Muscular Goes After
Shaw of Review Of Reviews.
STATEMENT
Better Attach Oklahoma to
Kansas Than to |. I.

reasons WnN the American REVIEW 81
Review Judge 4. r. Museller gives some
OF statehood for Oklahoma. The follow
ing reply Of Judge Museller shows how
prejudiced aid ignorant most of the pee
PIE Of the east are in regard to the west
The December number of the Ameri-
can Review of Reviews contains an ar
ticle of some length on the question OF
the admitting Of new states, together
with general criticism of the action OF
congress in the last twenty years in ad-
hitting sta ties in the west.
This article, which is Of some length
and published as it is in one of the great
periodicals of our country. is entitled 10
more than a passing notice. It not only
assans the present omnibus bill, but is a
general attack upon the government in
the past for admitting various western
states.
The manner in which DR.. Shaw, the
writer. discusses the matter and the meth
cd by which he arrives at his conelu-
sions, are peculiar, TO say the least. And
after saying that two-thirds of the states
never had any rights at all OF separate
sovereignty(which in itself is a remark
variance with the idea Of our govern
menO the article arraigns the Republi-
can party for having admitted a number
of states lying in the west, as imprudent
and experimental. and then proceeds
TO compare Nevada in population with
several of the other states; Montana is
compared with Texas, and Nevada is
compared with New Jersey. New York,
-.hode Island and Ohio The division Of
the Dakotas into two states is severely
criticised; the admission of Montana, Ida
no, and Wyoming, is condemned. And
then the statement is made that these
three last mentioned states should have
been continued as territories for another
decade and then admitted as one state
THE article then begs the whole ques-
ton and attempts 10 forestall public opin-
ion by stating: 1t is, of course, the mer-
est nonsense 10 say that the presentation
of these plain facts involves no unfriend-
illness toward the states thus mentioned
The further statement is made that the
Democrats are probably committed 10
the policy Of admission of the three ter
ritories under the omnibus bill, and the
impression is thus left that the Republi-
can party is not so committed. when in
fact The Republican platform contained
the plank favoring the admission of said
three territories in language as positive
and unequivocaI as the Democracy has
ever used. IN speaking of Oklahoma,
the writer says: oklahoma claims are
based on the really remarkable growth
OF her farming property. oklahoma
would in the long run stand with Mis-
souri,. Texas and Arkansas in the Demo
cratic column. It has been carved with
accidental and unscientihc boundary lines
ont OF western part of the old Indian
Territory. through the governments ex-
tincuon of the Indian titles and the sue
cessive opening up Of several tribal res
ervations And further on the writer
be added to Texas, as a glance at the
map viii show
To show how fallacious is the argu-
ment Of the Review Of Reviews on the
question of the admittauce Of states by
comparisons. it is only
TO quote few figures from the
census Of 1S40. The state of Vermont in
the ten years from 1880 to 1910 only in
creased in population 1900: Virginia, 2S,-
l0): North Carolina 1900; MARYLAND. %
09o: New Hampshire 1900; Rhode ISL
and 1000 and Delaware 100; AMI yet
at the same time. during the same period,
Arkansas and Illinois tripled in popula-
ton. Mississippi and Missouri did almost
as wei. Alabama and Indiana doubled in
population. and New York and Ohio each
received o population Of 5000o0 The Re
views argument could have been urged
with great success against the admis-
sion Of Florida when that state was ask
ing for admission by using the statis-
tics of 1870 These figures indicate very
clearly that one cannot determine
through any one decade where popula-
ton viii GO or what Is more deter
mine an argument for or against a policy
81 admitting state by citing any short
period OF time as an argument. And this
IS what the Review OF Reviews attempts
to do. Continuing the writer's form Of
argument one could Just as well say
that the admission II Maine was mis-
take for that grand old commonwealth
has NOT added 10000 TO her population in
.4ly years: and yet who would want t.
lose the memory q Hannibal Hamlin or
James G. Blaine. or our recent lamented
lnomas r. Reed2 Such an argument
vii not DO. We cannot safely measure
the immediate future by the recent past.
We build states for all time al least
statesmen shouId do 81. and not for
generation simply; and the patriot OF to-
3ay who takes a statesmanlike view Of
the conditions OF the west will not only
grant statehood 10 Oklahoma bat viii do
ID speedils. without delay Of any kind OF
character. Very few II our states have
had comparative steady growth for
successive years. There have been peri
'ss where for time growth was checked
by what kind OF reasoning the learned
author q the article quoted from the Re
view or Reviews arrived az the corciu-
sion that Oklahoma would in the long
run stand with Missouri Arkansas ard
Texas IN the Democratic column unless
congress persists 81 making The Inii2n
Territory part Of Oklahoma. IS haroad
the couprehenssc1 q those VINO lise IN
.he territory oklahoma Is Republican.
4u6 safely So ans Rith statehood alone
Ter aer with her present boundaries she
would De as safeiy Repuhiiesn as Kansas.
llaois CT Indiana again. Il is would be
Eight ard proper and the act q states
20 sttach No s-an's Land % the
state 81 Texas. as Advocated by the learn
~ writer. shy sheuld mt Long Island
se attached 70 Cor-ecticu-. or ths north
I'm peninsula ~ Michigan g. asta-hed
10 Wisconsin. OF Mar and be- attachad g.
virginia. Would anyone seriously pr
sent an argument II favor q the three
last mentioned propositions And YET.
.orsooth. because oklahoma happens 30
be territory. she should b. deprived
q 3 portion OF her territory because her