Bisbee daily review., 1905-11-09
DID 5EVERIDGE WRITE THAT PIONEER LETTER?

There is a well grounded suspicion now prevalent throughout the terri tory that the letter recently publishe, in the Tucson Star and bearing tn name of Senator Beveridge of Indiana with the statement of the Star tha t was directed to a pioneer of th old pueblo, was not genuine letter end was never written by the senate So pioneer" on the banks of th Santa Cruz or to any one else. Thi supposed letter is now undergoing tn closest scrutiny and comparison witl former declarations of Senator Bev eridge on the question of joint state hood, and it is found that the Ian guage used in this letter to pioneer IS no more like the eloquent expres sion of the Indianan than a Wolfvill story is like one of Bob Burdette' sermons. Commenting on the "pio neer" letter, now believed to be a rank fake, the Arizona Republican says:
 In the beginning. there was re marked a wide difference in literary style between the letter and the var ! ious contributions of the senator tol magazines and periodicals in which he designed to set the world right in a multitude of directions. Ever since the senator was projected across theI horizon he has been in print, so that the reading public has had the oppor ! unity of becoming more or less ia | y1iliar with his graceful literary curves whith which the letter to Pic i neer is wholly undecorated.
 Those of more acute taste have pretended to discover a certain re- ssmblance between the construction of the letter and the eccentricites or style of former Governor Hughes, edl- 4 tor of the Arizona Star, who, by the way, is something of a pioneer This view of the case is partially supported by circumstantial evidence.
 Governor Hughes enjoys the dis i finction of being the pioneer in the use of and the coiner of the expres | ,fon Arizona the Great" which ap | raars thirteen times in the reputed peyeridge letter. Again. the letter | which bears the date of September goth. abounds in the same joint state i hood arguments which long before that date Governor Hughes had worn fdreadbare in the Star. NIT. Beyer' jdge. or the writer of the letter, has rot contented himself with the con. ecienceless theft of Governor Hughes ideas: he has not even disguised t5em: he has purloined even the words of the Stars editor.
 Tn one place in the letter appear fhese words: After the breath oIl fife is breathed into her nostrils and esoe rises in her majestic beauty tn --ourgest and ioveliest of our south western states" We recall that NIT Reyeridge employed those exact words in A speech he made in the senate on the Hamilton bill. It is difficult to- believe that the use of that expression has become a fixed habit of the sen rtor. so that he would unconsciously let them fall from his pen. A writer of his experience and ability would not purposely use a rhetorical ex pression he had used before without an explanatory statement. Assuming as many suspicious persons do, that Governor Hughes, in his capacity of pioneer. might have indited the reply to himself. it may be further assumed that the governor has read everything Mr. Beveridge has said or written on the subject of joint statehood and thae the expression having been scared on his brain would easily fad its way into the letter.
 Then in the Beveridge letter there is a bitterness of antipathy to terri torial politicians which is quite un natural But Governor Hughes for some years has been severely at outs with the fins"
 One of the standard arguments the Star put forth long before September seth is expressed in the Beveridge letter in the following language: "The territories are naturally one; one in topography: one in history; one in destiny What New Mexico lacks Arizona supplies"
 The last sentence must be construed to mean that there is diversity of interests between the two territories, making an interchange of commodi ties desirable Would Mir. Beveridge who has the reputation of a reason ing man. urge that as reason for annexing the territories? Would they be brought closer together in com nercial way by joint statehood? Could not Arizona supply New Mex Ico's needs as a separate state or territory as weu as part of a joint state? We may also ask, would It not be difficult to satisfactorily legis Iate in a joint state for those diver sifed interests.