Bisbee daily review., 1905-12-24


 al law governing Arizonians. notwith standing the negative and dissenting vote of every eleotor in Arizona.
 There is no doubt that an over whelming vote of the people of Ari Zona would be recorded against any constitution which involved the joint ure of the two Territories as one State Yet. notwithstanding that. we wouiC be by the preponderant vote of New MeXicans subjected irrevocably to $ fundamental law against which we in vain and uselessly protested.
 Again the proposed law provides for the election Of State officers at the same election as that at which the question Of the ratification or rejection of the proposed constitution is submit ted, proceeding upon the theory of all already effected union of the two Ter ritOries. This provision we are frank ly told, was made to insure the adoption of the constitution by eXCit | ing partisan strife for office
 1 So completely would the people Oi Arizona be bound by the domination 1 influence and numerical prepOnder ance of New Mexico that, even if they should refuse to elect or to send deie gates 10 the constitutional convention and refuse to open the polls for votes i at the election called to ratify or re | ject the proposed constitution. they would nevertheless. aGainSt their will become subject to a State government and a State constitution to which they in no wise gave their consent If il should be said that the people Of Ari zona would not have any right to ob- lect if she took no part in tine State making process-that their absence from the polls conclusively implied their assent-then we are forced to the position that there is no alterua- tive forus If we should not go to the polls, We are presumed 10 assent: if We do go tO the polls and are over whelmingly outyoted by the New Mex jeans, We are bound directly against our consent
 It may be said by some that a ma jority of AriZOnians would favor joint statehood and constitution involving that form of government; or it may be said that possibly a majority of the people of New Mexico and majority of the people of Arizona are opposed to Joint statehood. No fair-minded Arizonian would predict that any con stitution involving jointure with New Mexico could receive the majority of the votes cast at an election in Arizo- na. The most conservative AriZonian will say at once that there would be an overwhelming majority against such a constitution
 The question whether the New Mex leans, with their numerical preponder- ance in the convention and at the polls. would acccde to our views. or whether We might not agree instantly upon a new policy for the new State. is an assumption that does not warrant the closing of the door against the people of Arizona; no one can safely predict the action of the people of New Mexi- co. The principle itself proposed in the joint statehood legislation is ~rung and subYersive of the rights of any people. If it were only a question Of agreement, then it should be sub. mitted 10 the people of the two Ter ritories separately. The jointure ought to be effected only after the people agree upon it.
 
 tion of delegates elected by the people Of New Hor'l and the people of Massa- chusetts. the number to be in the pro- portion of the respective population of the two States. each of the delegates to have one vote in the convention, and if that convention were charged with the framing of a constitution for the government of the people of the two States. and if the question of the ratification of that constitution were to be determined by a majority of all votes cast in both States at an election called for that purpose, the matter would present itself forcibly 10 the people of those swO States. and there could be no question that the proposi- ton would be denounced as violating every principle of right and justice and that particularly fundamental one that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed.
 Of course. it would be objected to any such proposition that the Consti- tuition itself inhibits the junction cf two or more States without the con- sent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress. But it must be admitted that it is not wise or just to join two States as one without the consent of both separate ly given. independently of the question whether the Constitution forbids it. The justice or injustice, the wisdom or folly. of such a procedure is not dependent upon the expressions Of con stitutional provisions. It was because it was unjust to the people of any State to compel them to be subjected to a system Of laws to which they did not assent that this provision was placed in the Constitution. By insert ing it there was no new standard of justice raised: and the injustice of the proposition 10 join the two separate and distinct peoples. and thereby sub ject either or both to a government which is repugnant to them or either of them. is absolutely independent of the constitutional provision.
 The answer to the proposition to ef- feet the junction of New York and