Bisbee daily review., 1906-06-24

 they could not get separate statehood without contest and without further delay.
 But. MT. President. it was not my purpose 10 speak particularly of that. now, 1 want to say, in answer to the Senator from Texas, that 1 think he has given more forece and effect to this provision prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors than he was war ranted by the text in giving to that provision. One hearing the Senator sl ealI would have concluded l think, that there is a requirement in the en- abling act that the State of Oklahoma shall put in her constitution q prohi- bition against the sale or barter CT giving away of intoxicating liquors to anybody within the new State of Oklahoma, to be composed of the two Territories. The Senator will find, if he will take the trouble to look at the text, that the provision is not so bread that 1t is so narrow and has such manifestly proper purpose that 1 think the Senator upon reflection would not find so much fault with iI at any rate. as he has expressed. The provision is:
 "First. That perfect tOleration of religious sentiment shall be secured. and that no inhabitant of said State sbalI ever be mOlested in person or property on account of his or her mode Of religious worship, and thar poIyga- nous or plural marriages and the sale, barter. or giving of intoxicating liquors TN Provided. That the sale, barter, or giv- ing away, except for mechanical. me dicinal, or scientific purposes. of in t0Xtcating liquors within that part of said State heretofore known as the Indian Territory or other Indian res ClVatiOns within said State be pro- htbited for period of ten years from | the date of admission of said State and thereafter until after the legislat, ure Of said State shall otherwise pro l vide
 i Mr. President, I am not a member of the Committee on Territories. have not had this bill especially un der consideration. have given very little attention to its provisions wltr f respect 10 Oklahoma and the Indian
 
 attention to its provisions with re, spect 70 Arizona and New Mexico. But what little l know in a general way Oi ! the character of these Indians, no., withstanding the fact that We have l been dissolving the tribal relations and l allotting 10 them real estate, leads me I to think it an eminently wise pro- vision that We should in creating this 1 State require that there shall be pos | itive prohibition against intoxicating l liquors being furnished to them either | by sale, by barter, gift. or otherwise l do not think, MT. President, that the | Committee on Territories. wnO nave | brought this measure before us, need i any defense as to this matter that they themselves can not make. I dc 1 yot think anybody needs any defense 1 for the making of a provision of that l character. It is true these Indians I suppose. are not in a wild state, bu ! they are Indians still, although the l tribal relations may be dissolved, and although We are proposing to make ! citizens of them.
 l I wish to say another word. l was opposed to the former conference re port when it was brought in here some days ago because of it's pro | visions with respect to New Mexico and Arizona. At the time when that con l ference report was brought in it Wa: published all over the country in tho newspapers, and particularly. in my l own State, that the conference report was based on what was known as the l "Foraker amendment" of last year that 1t had been adopted in precisely the same language, etc. And then fol lowed, day or two later, some harsh criticisms of me, particularly in my own State, because I was not satisfied with that conference report and in 1 sisted upon something else. was not satisfied with that, and I am not entire 1 ly satisfied with this, out am so vel satisfied with it that I intend to sup 1 port iI.
 l But the difference between the amend rlent of last year and the amendment of this year, which is the Easls or this | conference report. is a very wide diff | ference. can best make it plain by 1 calling attention to what the bill was | that we had before us last year in this particular. It provided. with respect to Arizona and New Mexico, that they | should be joined together and admitted | into the Union as one State. Then il ! provided that the governors of these two Territories should, within thirty days after the approval by the Presi ent of that enabling act, issue pIUU lamation ordering an election of dele gates to a constitutional convention, tC be held on the tenth Tuesday after the approval of the act, and until tha date was given by the provisions oi