The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-06-16
Nor DOING IusrIcE.

| L.. T y We assume that the report of the conference committee on Statehood which was accepted by the senate-will be accepted by the two houses and-be- come the law. White we may admit that 1t is better than nothing, and that the disposition made of Arizona and New Meixco is better than tacking them. on the bill 60 as to make two States at once. we are far from admitting that the right thing was done The two Territories above mentioned should have been left out entirely from this bill and not have been lugged into 1t In such a way as to mix them up in the elections which are to take place this year. They should have been al- lowed or required to vote at sepa- rate election. so as to avoid all com rlications.
 And there is not shadow of Justi- 1cation for uniting Indian Territory and Oklahoma. The plea that each is not fitted for Statehood separately Is absurd. After the example of the two Dakotas and Idaho and some others of the bunch-Erass variety of States 1t is libel on okiahoma and Indian Terri tory to claim that they are not entitled to come into the Union as independent States. In area, population and gen eral fitness they are far above some of the States that havs been formed in recent years and much better entitled to Statehood on their own merits. It was sectionaiism and politics that fore ed them together.
 And that provision of the Statehood bill which prohibits or seeks to regu- late the sale of liquor in the new State Is simply an outrageous provision. While the Indian portion of the popu- lation was under Federal laws, and when the entire Territories were gov erned by Federal laws. there was some reason for regulating the sale or other disposition of liquor. but that argument will end when the new State is admit ted. When that is done. and the sta.e of Oklahoma takes its place in the family of ststes it must either have the right to regulate and control It's Internal affairs or 1t will not be the equal of other States
 Congress has just as much right to prohibit the sale of liquor in Alabama as it has to prohibit 1t in the new State when 1t has been admitted. The people may submit to that condition in order to obtain admission into the Union, and may for the same reason adopt State 0~ fut, ion, but suppose within a year or two the people amend their constitution so as to leave it to the State laws to regu- late sales of liquor, what will the Uni ted States government do about 1t? It will hardly attempt to drive the State out of the Union. and it cannot find any constitutional grounds upon which to nnllify the State Constitution and enforce prohibition.
 The plea that the Indians as citi- zens of State will still be wards of the nation is a humbug, and the oth- CT argument that they cannot be trusted with liquor is still worse. As a general proposition the Indians who will form the greater portion of the population of the new State-the IT, dian Territory part of it--are as well fitted to regulate their own affairs ana to care for themselves as the white people of any of the Territories are. Senator Money was not far wrong when he spoke of the liquor provision of the bill as a result of cant and hyprocisy.
 In the anxiety of the people of the two Territories to obtain Statehood we suppose they will accept what Congress deals out to them. but the bill under consideration lacks vast deal of be- ing just or right. The people of the two Territories would do much better if they would refuse to accept the terms proposed, and would remain out of the Union until they can come in on equal terms withs other States. Some future Congress will not be controll- ed by sectionalism and partisan poli- tics and will be willing to do justice to the Territories.