Arizona republican., 1905-11-03
It Bears the Brand.

Golfers Weekly which recently con- tained an article on Arizona, present ing reasons against the creation of a state out of New Mexico and Arizona, in the current number reprints some of the arguments employed by Mir. Beveridge and eastern papers Tn favor of joint statehood. Says Golfers: We have already given some account of that part of the opposition in Ari- zona. which is sentiment. It is charged by those favoring the bill that a hard fight is being waged for reasons less legitimate; that the Santa Fe, the Southern Pacific and the affiliated mining interests think that their con- trol would be less if a state were formed of these two territories; that they would be less able to defeat a bullion tax law or a mine inspection law The present office holders are also said to be against joint state hood.
 The Republican recently went over this ground and now rather reluctan- tantly devotes more space to a refuta tion of the statements which Golfers are made. and to show the fallacy of the arguments, based upon these all = legged facts.
 Its main purpose now is to direct attention to the character and proba ble source of the material employed by advocates of joint statehood. We will repeat that while the railroads and mining companies might very nat urally join with the other property owners of the territory agalnst the movement for a double state. we have not been informed that either the mine owners or the railroad managers are taking any action in the matter. We have reason to believe that they are not. We are certain that there is no concerted acton by them with ne anti-joint statehood league, though individual railroad men and individ- ual mining men are laboring with in- dividual ranch owners, individual mer- chants, individual laborers, individual cattlemen, individual men of every in terest against the consummatiOn of thIs wrong.
 
 any particular class or any particular industry. It is impending over all territorial industries and all classes.
 We do not think that the charge of the activity by the railroad and mine owners originated with MT. Beverldge. though ne has made it. or with the Eastern newspapers, which have print
 
 tions into the controversy is the work of local demagOgues- some of the very few who are urging joint state hood. The suggestion was made by them, and has simply been adopted. It has ever been the policy of foolish demagogues to endeavor to cast odium lpon a cause by linking corporations with it. We do not believe Il Ut any joint statehood advocate in this terri tory would charge in public that the corporations and the office holders are the moving power behind the opposi- tion to joint statehood. We do not believe that the editors of the four pa pers in Arizona, said to be in favor of joint statehood, could be induced to | rrlnt such a charge for home con- sumption.
 Yet we are certain that some of | them, joint statehood advocates or joint statehood editors have forward | ed to MT. Beveridge matter with which | they would not insult the intelligence | of Arizona hearers and readers.
 As to the inference that the corpor | ations and politicians are the chief Op | ponents to joint statehood, it may be | said that every public and representa- ! tive gathering neld since the agitation | was begun has entered a strong pro- test against it. Every church con | ference, every commercial body. every | political convention of either party has | implored congress not to do Arizona | this wrong. And we may add that | not a dissenting voice has ever been ! publicly raised against the protest.
 Then admitting that the railroad | managers and the mine owners are fighting jointure, are they fighting | alone? Have not they and all the | people been driven together by a ] common peril?