The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-08-02
REPUBLICANS ON STATEHOOD

erection of capitol and other necessary
! buildings Oklahoma is protected against
! that necessity and her taxation for state
purposes should always be very light
The Indian Territory has no grant of
| lands for any purpose and cannot have.
! Her lands all belong to the Indians and
/ congress cannot appropriate them for
public uses. She has no public lands or
/ funds of any kind; her lands, all owned
/ by the Indians, are not even taxable.
! Single statehood means that the lands
! granted to Oklahoma for the purposes
named, must be divided UP and shared
equally with the Indian Territory; thus
/ increasing the taxation of Oklahoma
] people, especially for school purposes.
/ very materially. Half of our school fund
would go to the Indian Territory; public
| institutions would be required there for
which Oklahoma would pay half the cost.
State buildings, which Oklahoma's funds
would pay for would go there also. For
this sacrifice Oklahoma would get prac-
ticaIly nothing.
TAXATION.
It is asserted that union with the
Indian Territory would make taxes light
er. For the reason above stated, it would
be more likely TO make them higher. But,
if it did not, the effect, in any case, would
be so small as to be practically i'm
material. State taxes, only, would be
affected, and these are a small item of
tax bills. County, school, city, road and
other local taxes make up most of what
the people pay and these are not affected
in the slightest by state boundaries. In
some cases heavy debts have been created
and taxation made necessary, for the
erection of capitol buildings, penitentiar-
! les and asylum for the insane and blind.
universities. normal and other schools
and for other public Institutions; but, as
we have already shown, Oklahoma is
already protected against taxation or debt
for these purposes. 1t is only necessary
that she should not fritter away her adj
vantages Indian Territory could bring
no benefits TO US that would compensate
for what We should surrender. The pre-
tense of lighter taxation is a deception.
A BIG STATE.
Again, we are constantly reminded that
union with the Indian Territory would
make US a Great, Big, Rich State" but
We are not shown that this would benefit
the individual citizen, beyond the decep-
tive claim that it would tighten taxes and
this we have already shown to De a
delusion. To be a Great, Big State"
might be a cause for empty pride and
boasting, but it would not place single
dollar in the pockets of any citizen OF
| Oklahoma. There is nothing practical in
it. Whatever wealth there may be in the
Indian Territory will stay there. in the
pockets of those who own 1t. Texas is
Great. Big, Imperial State" but the
individual citizen derives no benefit from
that fact and has no advantages over the
citizens Of Ohio or Indiana. We are Of
the opinion that Oklahoma, even in her
territorial condition, is just as good a
place to live, as is the Imperial State
Of Texas; and there are few citizens Of
Oklahoma who would be willing that the
territory should be attached TO that I'm
perial State" And yet, ii would make us
a part Of great deal bigger and more inn
perial state than 10 be attached TO the
Indian Territory. 1t might also be better
TO be governed exclusively by Texas demo-
Gratis, in Texas. than by a combination of
Texas and Arkansas democrats and In
dams, in the Indian Territory But the
imperialism of either condition is not
attractive.
Oklahoma would not make a small state
but small states are not inferior in eco
nomical and good government.
1t is also urged that Oklahoma is too
small to make a good state. Oklahoma
is larger in territorial extent than thir-
teen states now in the Union. while Ohio.
Kentucky. Virginia and Tennessee are so
slightly larger as to be practically the
same Her population is now greater
than that of fifteen states and is increas-
ing with rapidity that will soon place her
in advance of several other states
Oklahoma would not make small state
in any proper sense But it is not certain
that to be a small state is Objectionable.
The experience of the country is that the
small states are generally the best COVER
ned; that they have less debts per capita;
lower rates Of taxation than the larger
states Delaware, New Jersey. Vermont
and West Virginia have practically no
bonded debts, while those Of the other
small states are very light. The rates
Of state taxation in Vermont. Rhode
Island and Maryland are only a little
more than one-half as much as they are
in the big states of Texas and Missouri.
And it does not appear anywhere that
the large states have any advantage
whatever in securing lighter burdens to
the people.
Boodling and other corrupt practices
are seldom heard Of in the small states.
To find these evils of government, 1t is
necessary to go TO the large states like
New York. Pennsylvania and Missouri.
These are the more secure nesting places
Of official rotteness and corruption. Large
scources Of revenue careless and extrava-
CANT expenditures, big salaries costly
buildings and more of them, useless jobs
with generous salaries. The opportunities
for corruption and the temptations TO
extravaganza are greatly multiplied and
crooked paths made more difficult TO
discover. And the history OF small sta
ties shows that they are more honestly
and economically governed tnsn the large
states and at less expense TO taxpayers.
Their governments are nearer 10 the
people and can be more closely observed
and guarded. Corruption and eXtrava-
gance can not so we'll hide themselves
and more honest aud economical methods
prevail
1t may be suggested that not one OF
the small states has ever shown the
slightest discomfort with its position nor
any indications Of a desire for CONSOLE
dalton with any other state. New Hamp-
shire and Vermont put together would not
De quite half as large as Oklahoma.