Bisbee daily review., 1905-12-24

Q or the government are derlVSd rom the consent of the governed as are the . people of any other extent of territory . within the limits of the Union, whetll- CT in a State of the Union or not. . Whatever power Congress has over | that people. it never had and by the very genius of American institutions could not have the right to exercise
 it in derogation of the rights of Ameri-
 can citizens.
 To regard the people of Arizona and the country they inhabit as
 mere dependency of the Federal Gov
 ernment is not to be admitted. By
 the terms Of the cession of the Terri
 tory to the United States the inhab-
 itants became, without other act of theirs than mere continued residence
 there. citizens of the United States. It certainly will not be contended that
 those of the inhabitants of Arizona
 who migrated hither from other States
 lost any of the attributes of American
 citizenship. And these constitute the
 people If Arizona. The Indian seems
 8 constitution. and the enactment of
 laws theHcunder for the government
 of ifs people are all acts of the people
 of tha' particular extent of territory
 which they inhabit. They can orig
 mate nowhere else. and whether that
 people. being American citizens. rcsid-
 ing upon American soil, shall have at
 tained to sufficient numbers ana nave
 sufficiently developed it's resources to
 assume its ability to maintain a gov
 ernment or not. it's right to establish
 a State is absolute: and if that govern
 uent is republican in form it's admis-
 sion into the Union is matter of right.
 There can be. it seems to me. no other
 logical conclusion. The power of the
 F'deral Government 10 govern any peJ-
 pie. whether of the States or of the
 Territories. is either expressed i'll the
 Constitution or is one inherent in all
 governments. If it is an inherent oue
 it cannot, notwithstanding its being
 eXtraconstitutional. pc exerciser in con
 travention of the will of the people or
 of the spirit of the Constitution. If
 il can be an expressed constitutional power it must be exercised with com
 plete regard for the rights of Ameri-
 can citizens
 4 I suggested for illustration the sub stitution of New York and Massachu- setts for New Mexico and Arizona in the situation in which the proposed joint statehood bill, if it became a law, would place them. Every arsu- Iment that can be urged with any view
 of justice for the junction of New Mex
 leo and Arizona into one State can, | | with even more force. be urged for the i l junction of New York and Massachu- sets. If hohogeneity of population be a reason for uniting two peoples into one system of government. then that reason is stronger in the case or New York and Massachusetts than in ! the case of New Mexico and Arizona. ! ! If community of interest be reason, l ! the stronger reason again is for the , junction of the two great Common wealths on the Atlantic than in the case of the Southwestern Territories: and 50 with intimacy of association. II increased extent of territory, popula- | ton wealth and resources is any req ! son for the jointure of New Mexico and Arizona, and that prospect be a persuasive appeal to the pride, patriot | ism. or vanity of the proposed greater ! Arizona, would not the same appeal | for the greater New York be as equal lv effective with the people of New l York and Massachusetts,, If freedom and ease of communication and com ! merce between the component parts . he an argument for making one State of the two Territories, even rseater freedom and ease of such communica- tion and commerce between the two States would present a more forcible argument for their junction. IT the line between New Mexico and Arizona, se,arating theme one from the other into two distinct peoples, Is but an imaginary one, and ir is assumed that therefore it should be ignored, so, too. by the same process of reasoning the line that separates New York and Mas sachusetts should be wiped off the map and known no more. If the necessary expenditure of public money for the maintenance of the proposed new state made of the two Territories would be less than the cost of the maintenance of two separate States. so, too, ln probably greater degree would be the cost of maintenance of State made of the junction of the two states De less than the cost of the maintenance of the separate States. If the use CT a common language. or the tradition of a common or an assimilatiVe ances- fry. suggests the prOpriety of the jolnJ- ureure of two hitherto separate peo- ples into one State, then it is incompar- ably more proper that one State De made of New York and Massachusetts than of New Mexico and Arizona. And likewise whatever of just and valid obiection that could be urged against the junction of New York and Massa- chusetts can with equal justice be urged against the enforced jointure or the two Territories against the will of the people of either.
 That the junction of New York ana Ii Massachusetts into one State would in- volve the loss to the people of two representative in the Senate, or of ll a vote to ratify or reject an amend ment to the Federal Constitution; or Of a vote for President in the event of the electoral college should faii to elect dOes not destroy or even lessen