Arizona republican., 1904-09-26

But Delegate Smith made no re. spOnse. If the councils action was
 without his authority, why did he re. main silent?
 But the house awoke Mir. Smith tc a realization of the mistake which had been made On the End day of March the house unanimously adopted the fol lowing resolution. offered by MT. Rowe We copy from the official journal, page S52:
 Whereas, council concurrent resolu- tion No 1S, which passed the council February 27th, recites that Arizona under certain conditions would be will- ing to enter statehood jointly with New Mexico. therefore be 1t resolved,
 "1st. That this house repudiates the sentiment embraced in said resolu- tion and it resents the action of who- ever was responsible for the telegram to our delegate which conveyed the inn pression that said resolution was the jclnt action of both houses.
 "2nd. In behalf of that band of pion- eers who have wrung from the savage this fair land of Arizona, in behalf of the citizens of Arizona who have fought it's battles and developed those conditions under which we now hap oily exist, this house resents the i'm putation that our members or the peo- pie of this territory, will ever submit to the proposition that Arizona will consent to any scheme by which it will lose it's identity and name and it's grand history that has been marked by the expenditure of blood, treasure and privation.
 Therefore. this house repudiates, so far as it concerns itself, any use of the name of this house in the telegram which gives publicity to the idea that that sentiment embraced in said reso- lution was the joint action of the Twenty-second legislative assembly.
 ''Srd. Therefore. this house instructs its chief clerk to transmit to the Hon. Marcus A. Smith by telegram the sense of this resolution, which is, that Ari- zOna will always fight against any policy even by implication through which she may lose her name, iden- tity and history
 "On motion resolution presented by MT. Rowe was adopted by the unani- nous vote of the house."
 As already suggested, upon learning that the house had repudiated the coun- ciI resolution, Mr. Smith saw a great light. On the 4th of March, one week after the unfortunate council resoIu- tion, and or the day that his term as a delegate from this territory came to an end. MT. Smith sent this telegram to the clerk of the house:
 Am sorry the council passed any Tn Both houses, in my judgment, should pass a memorial against any sort of union with New Mexico
 This is very interesting history. It is not reviewed for the purpose of showing that Mark Smith was treach- erOus. but for the purpose of making it plain that he did not lose his head in a supposed emergency, and did look with favor on a union with New Mex ico under the conditions named in the resolution. and that he might lose his head again.
 Ut is now pretty generally under stood that the foxy MT. Smith has chosen 10 leave his former friend Ives holding the bag. and that his refusal to accept his share of responsibility for that council resolution has caused an arrangement between him and Ives. It is urged by many that MT. Smith got Ives to father the resolution in order to destroy Ives politically. but we can not accept that theory.
 Why. it may be asked. does not AIr Ives make the mysterious telegram public. and place the responsibility where it belongs? The answer to that is obvious. MT. Ives cannot, without MT. Smiths consent. violate the con- hdential restrictions under which he received the message. notwithstanding the fact that he and MT. Smith are no longer friends. And. of course. the gentlemen to whom MT. Ives exhibited the telegram privately would prefer not to give their version of it's contents without his permission.
 There will be Q general demand, un- questionably, for Mir. Smith himself to release that telegram for publication. Will he do it?