Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1904-08-10
SENATOR BARD AND ARIZONA.

Some of the politicians and news papers of Arizona occupy a strange and inconsistent attitude toward Senator Bard, of California. They are hostile to him and apparently without reason. They seem to mis apprehend the situation, and to mis- take entirely the Senator's real at titude toward two subjects of vital in terest to Arizona, namely, national irrigation and statehood.
 This great enterprise, the irrigation of the arid public lands of the west, is, perhaps, of more vital importance to the welfare of Arizona, her people and her future, than any single enter prise, either public or private, in which they are or can be interested.
 Senator Bard is a known and ardent advocate of national irrigation. He is broad minded, intelligent, persis- tent, alert and just in his views and his work touching this great beneficial enterprise, which means the salvation Of vast areas of the public domain, now hopeless deserts. His ability, the comprehensive scope of his under standing, and his faithful devotion in the Senate to the cause made his selection for the chairmanship of the senate committee on irrigation the natural and necessary course for the president of that body to pursue. In that relation he has rendered inesti mable service to the cause so vital to Arizona and other arid regions, and his usefulness in that direction has only just begun. How, then, can intelligent citizens of Arizona having the true interest of their territory at heart find reasons for opposing Senator Bard and desiring his defeat for an other term? Their attitude is incom- prehensible and The Times is satisfied that it is based upon complete mis- apprehension of the facts in the case. It is not surprising however that this misapprehension is not universal be- cause no small portion of the intelli- gent population of Arizona refuses to entertain this view. Senator Bard is today in a position to render more substantial service to the Arizona of the future than any man in the Senate or than any other Californian could render. Arizona should be his friend and not his opponent.
 The other ground of opposition to Senator Bard in Arizona is his alleged attitude on statehood. Here again there is a curious misapprehenison of the true merits of the case. If there is no sentiment more than another dominant in Arizona it is opposition to joint statehood-tke hitching of Arizona and New Mexico together in order to go up to the national capital and demand admission. This senti- ment has been expressed in a multi tude of ways by the Arizona peopl' themselves. It has been voiced through their public journals through public meetings through territorial legislative action through her dele gates in congress through private par ties and in political campaigns. However else the citizens of Arizona have differed on territorial questions they at least have shown themselves to be unit on this one.
 What then is the attitude of Sena- tor Bard on the question-his real position, not the attitude which he is charged with holding? It is direct ly in line with the attitude held al most unanimously by the people of Arizona. The Senator is opposed to joint Statehood, and clearly showed that fact by his action in the Senate when the matter came up. On the contrary, he stands ready to vote for single Statehood for Arizona when ever the time shall be ripe for that achievement. His position on the subject is rational, defensible, just and practicable. He is not now, and never has been, unfriendly to the just and reasonable aspirations of the