The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-02-08

/ into the union. the provisions of this
1 section shall be Immediately enforc-
able in the courts of this state
Surprise Sprung by Foraker.
Then came the first surprise in con-
nection with the proceeding. This was
] the adoption of the amendment sug-
| Eested by Mr.. Foraker, providing for
| the submission of the constitution of
the proposed state of Arizona to the
voters OF the present territory OF
Arizona and the territory of New
Mexico separa tely.
Mr.. Beverage had suggested that
! the committee amendments should be
passed upon in order TO perfect the bill
! when Mr.. Foraker secured recognition
TO formally propose 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 a vote without a
suggestion from any senator. The sur
prise was no less when the supporters
of the committee bill failed to demand
division on the. vote.
5everidge Nonpiussed.
Mr.. Beverage. in charge of the bill.
sat IN his customary seat on the front
row on the Republican side, but made
no sign. The result created a ripple
OF excitement throughout the senate
chamber, and when it subsidized Mr.
Beveridge. on behalf of the commit
tee. indicated the purpose of accepting
several amendments suggested by Mr..
Long One of these prescribes the pro-
portion of the public lands to be de-
voted to the benefit of the higher in
sltuuons of learning in the proposed
state of Oklahoma. Mr.. Longs amend
plent then was formally accepted.
The amendment suggested by Mr.
Long. increasing the denotation to the
Oklahoma agricultural and mechani-
n - n nOO
acres was agreed to-
MI Bailey spoke in opposition to the
union of Oklahoma and Indian Terri
tory
He said that if Texas had had suf-
ficient population in the beginning it
would in all probability have been di-
vided into five states.
Mr.. Carmack offered an amendment
eliminating the provision in the bill
requiring the adoption of q constitu-
ton by the state of Oklahoma. many
of the provisions of which shall be ir-
revocable without the consent of the
United states. The amendment was
agreed TO on viva voce vote.
5ard's Amendment.
Mr. Bard then proposed an amend
ment providing for the admission of
New Mexico as a state in accordance
win It's present boundaries, the effect
DelnS 10 eliminate Arizona as a mart
or the proposed state. The amendment
was in the language of the amendment
formerly suggested by Mr. Patterson
and was offered as a substitute for the
provision IN the bill admitting Arizona
and New Mexico as one state.
The reading of the amendment con-
Sumed much time and was followed
with Interest, as it was realized that
1t probably would furnish the first test
vote.
Mr.. Bard explained the provisions of
the amendment and number of SEN
aJorS spoke for or against it
Among the senator's speaking for the
amendment were Messrs. NewIands.
Heyburn. Bailey. Elkins. Morgan. and
and SpOoner.
Nh Spooner declared that it was :dle
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 bagatelle. her
agriculture trifie; her population is
not such as to justify admission
EIkins' Reply.
Mr.. Elkins. replying. said he had
lived in New Mexico for MANY wears
and knew the people to be in every
way worthy of statehood He said the
Democratic party was keeping its
pledges by supporting statehood for
WV -hCAiCOt Wulle ReDuDHcanS were
violating pledge three times made
Mr.. Dolliver opposed the amend
ment, expressing the opinion that there
could never be a general civilization
without rain. 81 have observed" he
said, that mud and civilization go to-
gether-"
Mr.. Foraker spoke for separate state
hood for New Mexico, as did Mr.. Teller
Both defended the SpaniSh-Speaking
people of New Mexico, saying that they
compared favorably with the rural peo-
pie in other sections.
Question Of PoIyaamy.
Mr.. Stewart and Mr.. Clark of Mon
tana supported the amendment
Mr.. Burrows announced his opposi-
ton to the admission of New Mexico
and based his antagOnism on the reVe-
latiOns concerning Mormonism which
nave been made in the case of Senator
Smoot before the committee on pfivi-
leges and elections, of which he is
chairman. I cannot vote for the adj
mission of New Mexico" he said. be
cause to take it out of the Jurisdiction
OF the United States and lift il into
statehood would be to remove the
probability Of bringing TO justice those
who are violating the law"
The bill as il stands. he said, recog-
nizes the existence of the crime of po-
lygamy in New Mexico, by prohibiting
its practice. admitting that when it be-
comes sovereign state ii may remove
the restriction and nuliffy II. This"
ne said, brings US face TO face with a
condition that should alarm the coun-
try"
Does not the senator's objection ap-
ply with just as much force to the adj
mission of state composed of the two
territories OF Arizona and New Mexico
as TO the admission of New Mexico
alone?" asked Mr.. Bailey.
Burrows Opposed Both.
Mr.. Burrows admitted that IL did.
adding: 4 Will vote against the ad-
mission Of New Mexico alone or against
its admission coupled with Arizona
The condition with reference to polyg-
amy 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 exists in
New Mexico; il has been declared to be
the breeding ground of that practice
I am in possession of information con-
corning the conditions i'm that territory
which is absolutely startling. cannot