Bisbee daily review., 1906-01-11

ject tc sbeing joined with Missouri
 into one state government.
 The people of Arizona believe that they have right to expect the same
 treatment which has been accorded to other territories at the time they were admitted to statehood; they have lived in Arizona since 1t was made a territory in the hope and belief that
 when they developed the resources of the territory and attracted suf- ficient population, having the intelli- gence and wealth to guarantee state
 government, the territory would be granted the rights and privileges of Independent statehood. They have been industrious in the creation of sufficient, wealth; they have provided conditions of government which have attracted population which will com
 pare with that of any state in the
 Union. In every section of the terri tory have been provided efficient pub lie schools and creditable church
 buildings. In the support of these schools the territory has been at all
 times liberal, and during the last
 twenty years the tax payers of Ari-
 zona have paid more money per cap
 ita for the education of the children than any state of the Union. and with
 out one word of complaint.
 Why should the heritage of single
 statehood be denied to Arizona? Why should the same heritage be denied to the people of New Mexico? Why should the people of these two terri tories be prt of with half loaf. so
 far as self government is concerned, when We look to the treatment ac- corded other states at the time of their admission. These questions have neyer been answered and cannot be.
 There is no reason or justice in the proposition to wipe. Arizona from the
 map. and deliver her people over to
 the government of New Mexico. .... We all remember when Dakota was divided into two states at the time of her admission-North and South
 Dakota-none can remember that it was ever before suggested that two lterritories should be joined into one state. ,-.,--.-- .,. ...- .-.. ., A state composed of Arizona and
 New Mexico would start in with great sectional strife, which would continue and grow worse as time should go on; laws would be all new
 and unlearped by one part of the state or the other; in Arizona we have a modern school law which has been ap- proved and complimented by educa-
 tors who have been informed of it's
 provisions and efficiency, and to give up this law for the one now in force
 in New Mexico would be to do injury to the public schools now in opera tion. In Arizona We have the modern Australian election law, while in New Mexico the ignorant Mexican vote is . boiled in the old rawhide fashion,
 which permits the political heeler to
 march ups the herd, give out the tick cts and follow them until they are de- | posted in the ballot box. Would the
 Arizona or the New Mexico election
 law prevail in the new state? The
 New Mexicans would control fully ! twQ-thirds of the votes in the new l state, and Arizona would have to sub ! init to whatever condition the major ity saw fit to impose.
 Arizona has protested against this
 proposed statehood condition in every
 way that could possibly be suggested.
 Every representative body in the ter 1 ritnI-Y and in each of the counties