Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1903-04-21
DELEGATE RODEYS
POSITION
Urges That Question of Statehood
Be Pushed Forward and Promi-
nent During President Roose-
velt's Visit to Santa Fe.
NOT PLEASED WITH ACTION
OF LOCAL COMMITTEE
A Albuouerolle. N. NJ. ApriI 1S 1q(


To the Editor of the New Mexican,
Santa Fe, n. M.
Il notice in your issue of yesterday
that you advise that the decorations
committee of Santa Fe do not in any
manner bring forward statehood in the
way of notices, ETC., in it's decorations
on the occasion of the visit of the pres
ldent: and you argue that the president
gard, and that it would be more or less
of an affront to him to do so.
Permit me to suggest that to leave
statehood out altogether would be, in
my opinion and I am sure in the opin-
ion of many presidents of New Mexico,
somewhat of a piece of cowardice. You
say that if senators or congressman
were in the party, then to put state
hood notices in the decorations would
be proper. Permit me to suggest that
it is quite as proper to put statehood
mottos in the decorations when the
president is being received alone. The
president is one of the branches of the
government of this country, co-ordin-
ate and equal with the other two. This
legislative and judicial, each independ-
ent of the other within it's proper
sphere. The president of the United
states has the power to sign or veto any
,trI, Il
Therefore, he is naturally a party to
any such measure. He has even the
right to advise congress to pass a |
statehood BILL or not to pass a state
hood bill, if he chooses. President
Harrison recommended to congress in
one of his messages the passage of a
bill. Michigan, Nebraska
md Colorado had their statehood bills
vetoed several times before they were
inally passed.
''The president of the United States
s doing us the great honor of visiting
is as a president. He is not coming
lere as Theodore Roosevelt. We are
lot receiving him as Theodore Roose- ,
velt except incidentally. Therefore I
contend that after New
Mexico's great fight in the last con-
5ress for statehood, it would be an act
IF cowardice for us to leave statehood
)ut of the mottos in his reception. His
whole people, and not necessarily a re-
'eption of any part or portion alone.
he whole people of New Mexico should
,e the judge of whether or not we want
hat our people have expressed them
elves pretty thoroughly on that sub
ect.
He will not think any the more of g.,
IS If we leave out the matter that is .
earest to our hearts in his reception.
We either were in good faith in our
ght for statehood or we were not. If
'e were in good faith, we ought to
how the President of the United
tates, now when the opportunity Of
ers, that our fight was made in good
aith, and that we still want state
ood.
II sincerely hope that the decorative !
ommittee of the city of Santa Fe will :
I modest, but yet proper manner, :
xhibit the desire of the people for
tatehood by Incorporating that fact in
reasonable and proper way in their
ecorations, such as by the motto u
Statehood and Roosevelt in 1904 etc.
t is the remotest thing from my idea |
D have any pickering over such
hing as the reception of the President
f. the United States by citizens Of New
Iexico, but I cannot sit supinely by
nd see an effort of this kind made, be- =
ause l feel sure the people of New y
[exico do not approve of it.
II know there is a movement, that in :
~ opinion is not creditable, to try .
nd keep the statehood question in the
ackground during the Presidents WIS., :,
, and as one citizen of the Territory ="
ho has taken at least some part in the
atehood fight, I protest against it,
he movement failed at Albuquerque.
tatehood will be modestly and proper
put forward in the decorations 9,
lere. I hope you will publish this.
Sincerely yours, B. S. RODEY."