The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-08
FIGHT ON STATEHOOD BILL.
SENATE BARS ARIZONA; ADMITS
NEW. MEXICO ALONE.
Kearns Accused OF Trading Vote for an
Amendmmt-Baney and Beyer1dge
Clash-Oklahoma and Indian Terri
tory TO He Admitted as One State.

WASHINGTON, rep. 7.--Attcr Ilelu uaY OF
spirited debate and bewildering parlia-
mentary manUuvres, marked by much
excitement and lasting from noon until
$50 o'clock tonight without intermlssion,
the Senate passed the House Statehood bill
in amended form. Tho bill as passed adj
mits Oklahoma and Indian Territory as
single State and New Mexico as another
State. All reference to Arizona was cut
from the bill. 1t now goes to conference,
tho House having passed It April 10
last.
SO evenly divided were the advocates
and tho opponents OF the bill. at least 30
far as their differences related 70 New
Mexico and Arizona, that every vote was
a close test OF strength, with tho result in
doubt Until announced by tho Chair
The Senate, in fact. reversed itself az 30
New Mexico, voting in committee OF tho
whole to admit 1t, disagreeing to that propo-
sition when the bill reached the Senate
proper and again voting to admit New
Mexico. There WAS no roll call on the
passage OF the bill after the final test, the
bill being rushed through under the usual
formula.
The fight Of the day really centred about
an amendment offered by Mr.. Bard Of Cali
fornia, striking out the provisions for join
Ing Arizona and Oklahoma and admitting
New Mexico alone, This amendment
was agreed to in committee of the whole
by a. to 40. In the Senate the vote on this
amendment was SO to 80. 80 that it was
lost. The bill then stood in its original
form, admitting New Mexico and Arizona
Jointly. Mr.. Bacon offered an amend
ment striking both New Mexico and Arizona
from the BILL and his amendment pro-
vailed by the narrow margin OF 3s to 80.
Then Mr.. Bard again offered his amend
ment admitting New Mexico alone. chang
ing it sufficiently to bring 1t within the
rules as a new amendment. This EFFORT
was successful, the vote standing 10 10 81.
An effort to obtain n reconsideration OF
this vote failed, and as thus amended the
bill was passed.
On the Bard amendment, Clark Of Ar
kansas was the only Democrat who voted
with those who were opposed TO the admis-
sion Of New Mexico as single State. These
Republicans voted with the majority of the
Democrats in favor Of it:
Alger, Bard Beveridge (who on the first
roll call voted with the majority OF the
Republcans), Elkins, Foraker, Galinger.
Hansbrough, Hepburn. McCumber. Penrose.
Perkins and Stewart.
One OF the most exciting features Of the
days proceedings was the action Of Senator
Kearns OF Utah in reversing himself on the
Bard amen draent. JIG was recorded as
voting for 1t at frs..a committee Of he
whole.
When tho bill was reported 70 tho Senate
he offered an amendment providing for the
annexation TO Utah of that portion of Ari-
xona lying north OF the Colorado River,
and Mr.. Beveridge, chairman OF the Com
mittee on Territories and the sponsor for
tho House bill, caused sensation by advo-
eating it. Rumors went flying about tho
chamber that Mr.. Kearns had made trade
with Mr.. Beveridge.
This greatly angered the advocates OF
the Bard amendment, and for moment %
personal clash between Mr.. Bailey and MIR.
Beveridge appeared to bo imminent. Mr..
Bever1dge crossed the aisle TO the Texas
Senator and spoke TO him, as II In explana-
ton. Mr.. Bailey tossed his head in dis
dain and refused TO speak 70 the lndianian
Before that trade goes through We shall
have at least the yeas and nays" shouted
Mr.. Bailey. The yeas and nays were
ordered and the Kearns amendment waA
carried-3s TO 93.
Mr. Kearns thereupon voted against the
Bard amendment, confirming the advo-
Gates Of that amendment In the beuef thao
a trade had been consummated. Private
comment among the Senators on the con-
duct Of the Utah Senator was painfully
frank and uncomplimentary.
Mr.. Kearns said privately in explanation
that he had voted in the first place against
the Bard amendment, and roferred Senator'S
To his seat mates, Senator'S Kittredge OF
South Dakota and Clapp Of Minnesota. who
stated that they had distinctly heard him
vote aNo." Other Senators, however, were
equally positive in declaring that they
heard him vote In tho affirmative. His
vote was announced in tho affirmative, and
be did not see fit to correct the tally clerk.
II Mr.. Kearns had voted in the negative.
as he said he had really voted. the result
would have been probably the admission
Of Arizona with New Mexico
The Statehood bill was taken up to-day
Immediately after approval Of the Journal
and consideration of amendments begun
A committee amendment. prohibiting for
ten years the sale or giving away of intoxi-
eating liquors in the Indian Territory por-
ton OF Oklahoma State was first con-
sidered.
Mr.. Gallinger offered a substitute pro-
hibting the sale OF giving away Of intoxI-
eating liquors in the State of Oklahoma
for twenty-one years and making violation
thereof misdemeanor. A roll call was
ordered on the Gallinger amendment and it
resulted, ayes, 55; noes. 20.
1t was expected that fight would he
made on Mr.. Foraker'5 amendment pro-
vidng for vote by the people OF New
Mexico and Arizona separately on the
question Of the joint admission of these
Territories, but. TO the surprise Of many.
the amendment was agreed TO without
debate Under this amendment. ma orty
of the voters Of Arizona or New Mexico
may prevent the adoption Of State Con-
stitution and thus defeat the proposed join
ing Of the Territories in ono State.
Mr.. Bard offered an amendment striking
out the sections providing for tho Joint
admission Of New Mexico and Arizona
and inserting sections providing for tho
admission Of New Mexico alone as a single
State.
Mr. Hopkins Of Illinois opposed the
Bard amendment lie said it was deSecra-
ton to admit New Mexico. with only 10000