The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-28
WILL VOTE MARCH g
SENATE .AGREEs TO DISPOSE or
 STATEHOOD BILL.
Foraker Admits That it is His Inten- tion to Defeat Admission of Arizona and New Mexico as
 One Commonwealth.


 day agreed to vote on the Statehood bill before adjournment Friday, March 2, The proposition to take the vote at that time. was made by MT Beveridge and there was little difficulty in reach ing an understanding.
 The suggestion immediately followed a speech in support of the bill by Mfr, Hopkins during the course of which Mir. Hale suggested that the territories were not prepared for Statehood and suggested that their admission be de- ferred The remainder of the day was devoted to the discussion of the bill providing for the settlement of the af- fairs of the five civilized tribes of In- dians, the major portion of the time being given to the provision for the disposals of the coal lands in Indian Territory
 In the course of his remarks MT. Hopkins @ referred to the Foraker amendment giving Arizona d separate vote on the question of admission as "insidious and danHerous' but when Mir. Foraker objected to the language the Illinois Senator withdrew the word "insidious. What he had meant to say was that the adoption of the aI4endment would not only accomplish the defeat of the object Of the pending bin but would ultimately result in the admission of Arizona as a separate State. MT. Fornker admitted that he hoped to see both New Mexico and Arizona admitted as separate States at some time in the future.
 Mir. Honkins discussed the charge that the railroad and mining corpora tions of Arizona were standing in the way of the union of that territory with New Mexico. and when MT, Dubois ask ed some questions on that subject, Mir Nelson replied that those two inter- ests dominate the Legislature of Ari- zona," and he added the opinion that the union of the two territories as one State would have the effect of minim- king the evil
 In replying to Mir. Dubois's question IS to how the union would improve the situation, Mir. Nelson said that while no protests against consolidate had come from the corporation of New Mex leo, most of the opposition in ArIzna came from the railroads and the cop per miners. He added that these in- terests pay less taxes in proportion to the value of property than do other interests.
 DO the railroads Of the District of Columbia pay their share of the taxes?' asked Mir Dubois, and Mfr. Hopkins re- piled:
 "when the District of Columbia knocks for admission to the union we will consider that question.
 Do the Illinois railroads pay their share of taxes?" MT. Dubois demanded and Mir. Hopkins replied that they did that the law required that they should and that 1t was proposed to require such condition in Arizona.
 Mfr. Carter made the point that under Congressional control. it would be cas- fer to accomplish that result In ter- ritory than In State.
 Mr. Nelson replied to this point with q general exposition of conditions in both Arizona and New Mexico. not all together favorable to those territories This statement brought Mir. Hale to his feet with the inquiry. whether 1t Is not logical to conclude that territories should not be admitted at all at this time He added that he did not want to be understood as indicating pur- pose to vote against the bill, but that it seemed to him thatit would be wiser to permit the two territories to remain as they now stand.
 Mr Hopkins replied that owing to the persistenev of the advocates of making two States 1t would be better to make one State now and thus dis pose of the question. He. then spoke at some length of the individuality of admitting territories with small popu- lation or diminutive area.
 Mir. Perkins replied to some of Mir Honkins's reflections on the improba- bilify of growth i7 Arizona by saying that prospects for Arizona were as good now as were those of California when that State was admitted.
 When Mir. Hopkins concluded, Mir. Beveridge presented a proposition for an agreement to vote on the Statehood bill Thursday, March &.
 MT. spooner urged a postponement of the date in order to give sufficient time to consider the bill for the settlement of the afeairs of the five civilized tribes of Indians. He pointed out the impor- tance of the charge made that an old land grant would give certain railroads lands worth sSO,OO0.000 and said the Statehood bill could afford to wait on that measure.
 MT. Bailey opposed delay. saying that postponement would conflict with tho consideration of the railroad bill with which the Senate was even now pre- pared to proceed.
 After further debate the date of the vote was fixed for o'clock, Friday March g.
 The Indian settlement bill was then taken up and MT. Aldrich suggested that In view of the importance or the subject involved and the lack of in formation or the present. oShN1N' whole matter should be deferred He urged the adoption of a resolution eX- tending the tribal government, but MT. Clapp objected because of the difhculty of securing the cooperation of the House.
 Mir Long made tho point that Con gress had been considering the case at issue for eight years. He contended there was no danger of the loss of the land in the railroad grant because, he said, there would be no reversion or the land now owned by the Indians to the Government of the United States "The tribes do not end but their tribal government does" he sad.
 Mir AldrIch then presented a resoiu- tion for the continuance of the pres ent relationship among the Indians, as follows:
 '.That the tribal relations and gov ernment of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek and Seminole tribes, or nations, are hereby continued In full force and effect for all purposes until the fourth of June A. D., 1906"