The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-08
JOINT STATEHOOD BILL
 HAS PASSED THE SENATE

to formally present his amendment. This had for weeks been considered a crucial amendment and surprise was depicted on many faces when it was permitted to go to vote without sug- gestion from any Senator. The sur Iprise was no less when the supporters Iof the committee bill failed to demand a division on the vote.
 l The result created a ripple of excite ment throughout the Senate chamber, and when 1t subsided Mr. Beveridge, Ion behalf of the committee, indicated lthe purpose of accepting several amend lments suggested by MT. Long. One of tthese prescribes the proportion of the public lands to be devoted to the ben eft of the higher institutions of learn ing in the proposed State of Oklahoma. MT. Longs amendment then was form ally accepted.
 | The amendment suggested by Mr. | Lcng increasing the donation to the oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College from 15000O acres to 250,000 l acres was agreed to.
 MT. Bailey spoke In opposition to the union of Oklahoma and Indian Ter | rftory He said that if Texas had had suficient population in the beginning lit would in all probability have been divided into five States.
 T OkAMn0RAn0 COnAtAfuNlOns
 MT, Carmack offered an amendment eliminating the provision in the bill re- lquiring the adoption of Constitution by the State of Oklahoma. many of the Iprovisions of which shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States. The amendment was agreed to.
 Mir. Bard then proposed an amend ment providing for the, admission of New Mexico as a State in accordance with It's present boundaries, the effect being to eliminate Arizona as a part Iof the proposed State. The amendment Twas in the language of the amendment formerly suggested by MT. Patterson, and was offered as a substitute for the Iprovision in the bill admitting Arizona and New Mexico as one State.
 MT. Bard explained the provisions of the amendment and a number of Sem ators spoke for or against 1t.
 Among the Senators speaking for the amendment were Messrs Newlands, Hepburn, Bailey, Elkins, Morgan, and among those opposing. Messrs. Hopkins and Spooner.
 MT. Spooner declared that 1t was idle to compare New Mexico with the orig inal States. They did not come into the Union; they made the Union. New Mexico is not fit to come into the Union. Her mineral resources are a lbagatelle. her agriculture is triffing, her population Is not such as to justify admission.
 Mir. Efkins. replying. said he had lived in New Mexico for many years and knew the people to be In every lway worthy of Statehood. He said the Democratic Party was Keeping its pledges by supporting Statehood for New Mexico, while RepubTfsalfs were tviola9ins olersvp Eh rea fffffes made
 As tO BE0rmonism.
 Mr, Stewart and MT. Clark (Mont. ] supported the amendment. Mfr. Bur rows announced his opposition to the admission of New Mexico. and based his antagonism on the revelations con- cerning Mormonism which have been made in the case of Senator Shoot be- fore the Committee on Privileges and Elections, of which he is Chairman.
 'T cannot vote for the admission of New Mexico" he said, because to take 1t out of the Jurisdiction of the Uni ted States and lift 1t into Statehood would be to remove the probability of bringing to justice those who are yio- lating the law" The bill as it stands. .he said, recognizes the existence of the crime of polygamy in New Mexico by prohibiting its practice. admitting that when it becomes a sovereign State if may remove the restriction and nuIlify it.. This" he said, brings us face to face with condition that should alarm the country.
 Does not the Senator's objection ap- ply with just as much force to the ad- mission of State composed of the two territories of Arizona and New Mexico as to the admission of New Mexico alone?" asked Mir. Bailey.
 MT. Burrows admitted that 1t did adding: T will vote against the ad- mission of New Mexico alone and against its admission coupled with Arizona The condition with reference to polygamy is much worse in Arizona than in New Mexico and the conditions in both are such as to restrain me from voting for either. Today polygamy ex- lsts in New Mexico; it has been de- clared to be the breeding ground of that practice. I am in possession of information concerning the conditions in that territory which is absolutely startling. I cannot now enter into particulars but I do want to call att tention to the condition. and I say that in my judgment 1t would be fatal mistake to admit either or both terri- tories"
 Mr. DubOls'a Plea.
 Mir Dubois, who is also a member of the Committee on Privileges and Elec- tionS, spoke for the admission or New Mexico, saying that the revelations concerning polygamy. made in the Shoot case have been so startling that the national government will take con- trol of the question of polygamY in the States as well as in the territories
 MT. McComas also spoke of the rev elations before the Committee and ex- pressed the opinion that in view of them, far more effective strictures than are now in force against polyg- amy are necessary" He opposed sep arate Statehood for New Mexico.
 Mr. Platt (Conn.) said there was no doubt about the power of Congress to restrict polygamy, "an institution hich is," he said. "so inimical to our ruture."
 The vote on the amendment for the separate admission of New Mexico was then taken and 1t was carried. 42 to 9 40.
 The result evidently was a surprise 10 the advocates of the House bill and its announcement was followed by many conferences among them on the floor of the Senate.
 While these were in progress MT McCumber proposed as Q substitute for the provision admitting a state composed of Oklahoma and Indian Ter ritory combined, an amendment ad- hitting Oklahoma alone as state.
 MT. McCumber supported the sub stitute and Mir. Beveridge made an ernest plea against 1t, saying that 1t struck at the entire measure and de- priyes the people of Indian Territory fHnrr nnurb naad Ar