The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-10-03
OOg0]lo1O
& CANDY SRTHRRT'c
foc - 9 4sI ss q zszzs AZ
esc sO~ --<-zzz-szZzz11zs% Druggist
Genuine stamped c. Never sod il bnlk
Beware of the dealer who tries 70 sell
something just IS good"

! as above noted, makes such provision
for lands of educational institutions;
therefore the direct proceeds Of public
building lands may be used 4 minor
differences is that Section 10 provides
that Sections 10 and 80 shall be leased
under existing rules until the Legislature
makes other provisions. while Section
makes no such provision for school lands.
but of necessity this must be so without
such provision.
In Section 10 the words occur as the
legislature Of said state may prescribe .
which words are not used in Section 8.
You draw my attention TO the fact that
certain persons in the territory argue
that as these words do not occur in Sec
ton 9. that the legislature would have
no power TO prescribe the manner in
which the school lands were TO be sold.
Does any person presume or imagine
that Section attempts to prescribe all
the machinery that is necessary for the
administration Of the school lands3 It
is very evident that it does not for many
provisions viii have to be made before
the intent of either section can be car
ried out. and every person or ordinary
knowledge knows that. the intent OF
these sections is to allow the people in
adopting a constitution to express in
broad terms fundamental principles and
policies. under which constitution the
legislature must provide the details,
whether that policy be for the sale Of
the lands or for their perpetual or tenn
porary rental.
The argument that is being used to-
the effect that the legislature viii have
no power under this enabling act is sim
ply buncombe and is only used to alarm,
but can have no effect on any thinking
man who would sit down and compare
the two sections. think that the real
tnteitno Of the persons writing and ut
terins this argument against the pro-
visions of these sections (and I might
say that it is only done by Democratic
orators and newspapers, is to make the
lessees think that the Democratic party
is very anxious 20 secure the sale of the
lands to the lessee, and that they are
guarding every interest Of the lessee in
this direction. If that be their object
why did they not say in their platform
adopted at Enid that they favored the
sale of school lands to the Iessees?
The fact OF the matter is that neither
the Republican nor the Democratic party
declared on either propositions. the sale
or permanent retention. OF the lands, and
the matter tx left, upon the passage Of
our enabling act now before congress.
to the people in the adoption of our CON
stitutiOn; there the proposition comes
before US as to whether We viii
dispose Of the lands or arrange for their
permanent retention and rentak
But the Republican party at Enid
passed a resolution indorsing the Flynn
bill, which bill irrevoeably binds the
state TO the provision that. if the lands
are sold, when they are sold the Iessees
shall have the preference right to. pur-
chase.
Every one in the territory knows that
the improvements on these lands abso-
lutcly belong to the lessee, and no one
believes that the people OF this territory
are going to be unfair and dishonest
enough with the lessee TO try TO eoRAs-
cate his improvements at the tine of
sale. if the lands are sold.
This is aot intended as an argument
for or against the sale of these lands,
but if the Iessees desire to control this
proposition it must be very evident to
Them that the nine or ten thousand les
sees are more of a factor and would
have great deal more influence in the
adoption OF a constitution by Oklahoma
with its present boundaries than If state
hood he delayed and the onstftution !
adopted by the people Of Oklahoma and
indian territory combined. Very respect
fully, JAS. j. H0UNTON."