Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1902-08-04
|SPEECH BY
SENATOR QUAY
'uenf Facts and Figures Showing Fitness
Of the Territories for State
hood.
BOTH PARTIES PLEDGED
Fully Reviews History and Claims OF the Three Terri
tories, Especially New MexIco--Inslsts That Party
Pledges, Justice and Right Demand Their
Admission as States.

Inc New MeXlcan mas received mum.
erous requests for the texts of Senator
Quay's speech during the. last days OF
the first session of the 57th congress
made in the senate day or two before
adjournment upon the question of the
immediate consideration of the omnibus
statehood bill for the territories OF
New Mexico Oklahoma and Arizona.
In order to fill the demand for this
| speech, this paper republishes it here
with IN full. Many extra copies of this
issue are printed and the speech will
be very generally circulated through
out the territory 1t presents the his
tory Of the statehood movement and
the demands and claims of the people
of New Mexico for a state government
in clear and concise language and
shows fully that by every considera-
ton of justice, of right, of fitness, Of
ability to maintain state government
and under party pledges, given repeat
edly by the two great political parties
Of the country in national conventions.
that the territory of New Mexico espec-
tally, and Oklahoma and Arizona are
statehood.
After some preliminary sparring and
some questioning and answering, the
Pennsylvania senator said:
Mr. President, / desire to speak to
the motion now before the senate. that
the committee on territories be dis
charged from the further considera-
ton of the bill (H. X. 12543) to enable
the people of Oklahoma, Arizona and
New Mexico to form constitutions and
state governments and be admitted in
to the Union on an equal footing with
the original states.
| am a member of the committee on
territories, and this motion intends no
discourtesy to the committee, to any OF
its members, nor to its distinguished
chairman. The procedure is not UNI
|precedented. T. is not even uncommon.
The elder members of this body will
remember that in the closing days of
the first administration of President
Cleveland the nomination of John f.
Hartrdge to be a United States judge
in Florida was sent to the senate some
time before the final adjournment of
congress. Mr.. Edmunds, at that time
a senator from Vermont, was chairman
of the judiciary committee, to which
the nomination was referred. Mr..
Hartridge was a Democrat. The ma
jority of the judiciary committee SEEM
ed to think it proper to defer action un-
til after the Inauguration of the incom-
ing president, General Harrison. A
number of Republican senators, includ-
inc. both senators from Pennsylvania,
thought that the Democracy We're of
right entitled to the place, and some OF
us being personally cognizant OF the
high character and qualifications of the
nominee of President Cleveland, joined
earnestly in support of a motion made
by one of the Florida senators to dis
charge the committee. The effort was
unsuccessful. Though majority of
the senate favored the discharge of the
committee Senator Edmunds handled
the affair in his usual masterful man
ner and prevented a final vote. There
was no allegation then that the pro-
ceeding was revolutionary nor unduly
nor unnecessarily drastic. The senator
from Vermont simply asserted his po-
sition, avaied himself of his right
under the rules of this senate, and at
tained his object.
The so-called Sherman antitrust law
was referred by the senate to the COM
mttee on finance. 1t was reported with
amendments from that committee by
it's chairman, Senator Sherman, Janu-
ary IA, 1890. 1t was considered by the
senate, and March 81, $780, on motion Of
Senator Walthall, member of the jul
dietary committee, it was committed
to the committee on judiciary by vote
of 81 yeas to 2S nays, Senators Sherman
and Edmunds, chairmen, respectfully.
of the committees on finance and Judi
ciary, voting against committal.
On March 2, 1901, Senator Jones of
Arkansas moved to proceed to the con-
sideration of the resolution offered by
him over two weeks previously, on
February 16, 1901, and then numbered
2413 on the calendar, discharging the
committee on the judiciary from the
further consideration of House bill No.
1O539, amendatory to the antitrust law.
and that the senate proceed to consider
the same. After debate, by vote of 36
nays and "a yeas, the senate refused to
consider his resolution.
On October IS, 1877, Senator Thurman
of Ohio, moved that the committee on
privileges and elections be discharged
from the further consideration of the
credentials of j.. B. Eustis, a senator
elect from the state of Louisiana. Sem
ator Edmunds of Vermont, objected to
the consideration of the motion on that
day, whereupon the senate, on motion
Of Mr.. Thurman. adjourned.
On October 10, 1877, the journal reads
as follows: "The senate proceeded to
consider the motion yesterday submit
ted by Mr. Thurman, to discharge the
committee on privileges and elections
from the further consideration Of the
credentials of J. B. Eustis; and, after
debate on the motion of Mr.. Thurman,
Continued on Third Page.)