Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1906-08-15

20 co9e here. I never wxS In N~s
M~xtco b~fnrs. haa I n~s@r fsaf aake N
stranger foT M sl&amn*a1 ssn9ag sxsa.
sApgaanses eAaafn The san@ rAghs
tfxr each NJ s1Rr sxsGs ga2Iaa III xsnxs.
and \ take Eraas Nm shs mam@ ana
faHm@ 0f s@x NsxAn0 I sm nm Ann~ra
can. ~ soa are AsnFFaesns. ard sca
and 7 sllk@ haze me right TN sa2sn
as our MI every asre Art every rod
90 country frnm AaaA@ 10 0rs<on:
from Florida to California. ZAP
pianses The heaTens have bern nore
than pFnpifioas. thus far. and Ne
must nat complain ~ this shower.
An shall say L.. N Ses Mexico
wants 10 b. n state. yoa q count
me In. and I viii 90 90 washingfnn -
speak Tor ynu. ~ do anything yoa
sish." ILong and continued ap
plausel
A great change Gems 10 have
cone W hstxeen calonei Roosevelt
and President soossyeli as regards
statehood for New Msxieo. aud IL I
am not very much mistaken BE- sas
10 New Mexico On that occasion Just
about ~ long - BeysTiage and his
committee xhen on their remarkable
tour Of inspection. But then Colonel
Roosevelt Was not investigating the
Sums ~ New Mexico and looking fa-
everything had.
A short time 9 ! read ~ editor.
lal which Vas 50 good and 20 the
point that ! give II 10 YOU. although
I eanos recall the name az the na-
per:
Too big Tor one state. The area
included within the present bounda-
ries Of the territories Of New MEXICO
and Arizona In approximately equal
In site and shape % the combined
areas II the states u P~enrsylvaia.
Maryland. Virginia. West Virginia.
Ohio. Indiana and Kentucky. These
seven states have u total area of
:se. .ss square miles. while the total
area NJ the swo territories o New
MEXICO and Arizona In :ss.slN square
miles
n ought 10 BE- evident 10 even the
most provincial and narrow minded
of eastern congressman thas a state
government could not be organised
that would care properly for the n
terests Of Philadelphia. Baisimore.
Richmond. Cincinnati. Wheeling,
Pittshurr. indianapolis aud Louis.
vile. And II would not be primarily
because af an excessive population
that single state government would
fail for a state extending from the
Atlantic 10 the Mississippi. but rath'
or on account Of the diversity 0f con
ditions and interests that could not
he successfully defended and served
In such a way.
The great state Of Texas. larger
even than the proposed new state.
finds an eveF increasing difficulty in
satisfying the desires and just de-
mands Of It's people. Yet the state OF
Texas Is far more homogeneous In it,
character and It's qualities than are
the territories 81 New Mexico \
Arizona. In the case Of Texas. a ma.
tional organization had grown ur and
the people had been welded together
into harmony Of sentiment and pur.
pose. and this organization and senti'
ment deserved to be perpetuated.
But In the case OF New Mexico and
Arizona the tendency has been stead
Ily the other way. toward dissocia-
tion aud divergence. The basic prin'
cipal Of our national federation -
that Of local self government. com
bined with national union. The
ton Of such a giant state as the n
now proposed violates this fundamen-
tai principle since Il makes effective.
local self government impossible.
The bulk Of the arguments In favor
Of joint statehood for New Mexico
and Arizona Is based either upon a
row partisauship or narrow section
alism.
We believe that these two terrific
ries are ready o for separate state.
hood. but whatever difference Of op-
Union there may be upon this point.
"a few years viii put the matter be-
yond any doubt, for when their water
supplies are properly regulated and
applied 20 irrigation. New Mexico
and Arizona will be found TO be fully
capable Of maintaining the popula-
ton necessary for two self-governing
American commonwealths. This Is a
matter In which the interests Of the
entire west are concerned. and the
entire west should act as a unit in
resisting the Injustice Of joint state
hood for New Mexico and Arizona"