Bisbee daily review., 1905-12-24


 of lawa. and for l. 5.I t-an -grty years has had it's being, attained it's present development. and established those principles of jurisprudence that are designed to foster and promote ] further progress and achievement, un- | der those laws and their logical de | velopment That better laws might | be devised or that those which We have might be better enforced may be conceded; but it can not be conceded that any other people or power than ! the people of Arizona has the right
 to devise or enfore them, except only until we have attained the dignity of statehood, Congress itself.
 It can not be justly asserted by | thosCe who revere American insti;u- tons that that complete local self government which is naturally vested in the people of the States should be denied to the people of the Territories because. of a lack of the intelligence of the people of those Territories. their want of moral development, or their incaDacity to understand or ap-
 preciate the principles of self-govern-
 ment That denial must be justified
 on other grounds, if at all That a
 community is too small numerically
 relative to the extent of the territory
 occupied, and does not possess the
 wealth necessary to assume the bur
 den of a State government may be
 admitted to be a sufficient reason for the establishment and maintenance of the temporary Territorial form of government prevalent in the United States. The reason is not inherent in the people themselves. but iu the conditions incident to their place of residence. But while. for this req son they may be denied self-govern- ment as complete as that which the people of a State enjoy. thew are not withdrawn from the principle of the doctrine that the just DOW CTS of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
 The bill for the joint statehood of New Mexico and Arizona. which passed the lower House of Congress at the last session and which was so narrowly defeated in the Senate, dis tinctly violated this principle While protesting to be merely an act to en- able the people of the two Territories To effect jointure, and. being joined to frame and adopt a constitution and thereafter be admitted as a State of the Union. the bill. if it had become a law. instantly effected the jointure by its own operations without the con sent of the people of either Territory. The bill provided for constitutional convention of delegates, elected from the two Territories. joined for that purpose. The separate and distinct entity of the people of both was con sidered. The jointure was at once effected. The apportionment of certain number to New Mexico was not based upon any notion of two sep arate and distinct peoples, nor as a recognition of their independence of each other. but as a mere convenient method of apporuionment. Upon the assemblage of the convention so con sututed every such distinction would disappear. The delegate from a ie- cality in Arizona would have no furth- CT rights. cOulG exercise no other and would be entitled to no other consideration, nor exercise any other influence as a member of that body than could any delegate from any locality in New Mexico; nor could the aggregate number of delegates from that extent of country within the boundaries of Arizona have or eXer- else any rights. privileges. or powers other than a like number from the Territory of New Mexico The dis tinction in theory and in practice. it Is obvious would entirely disappear.
 The powers. rights. and privileges of the aggregate number of delegates from Arizona were not to be equal to the powers. rights and privileges of the aggregate number of delegates from New Mexico, because the number sppOrtioned to New Mexico greatly eX- ceeded the number appOrtioned to Ar izona; and in this is an instance of the fragrant violation of the Ameri- can principle, that the just powers of government are derived from the con sent of the governed. It would thus be made possible that the delegates from New Mexico. in Q convention thus constituted, could form and adopt a constitution repugnant in every par ticular to the people of Arizona, sub- versiye of their interests. impeding their progress. offending their pride. and humiliating them to the last de gree against the will and protest of every delegate from Arizona.
 It is not a sufficient argument for the proposed law to say that it is not probable that the New Mvxicans would do this. They do now have a different system of laws. one we con ceiye to be not adapted to our genius, and which is of their own choosing What would prevent their injecting it into the proposed constitution? What reason can we give for their not do- ing it? But it is submitted that the fact that the proposed law makes this possible is sufficient to condemn it as unjust. unwise, and peculiarly un- American.
 Again, it is provided by the law that when the constitution shall have been framed and adopted by the convention It shall be submitted to the people, not of Arizona, nor of New Mexica. l Duf fo fhp DaODIa of fhe fWO TerritO- ]