Arizona republican., 1910-03-14
A Possible Provision.

An amendment was suggested ny Father Ketcham resident of Wash inaton but whose clerical duties take him over all the Indian country of the I-nited States The proposed amend meut was That said constitution shall contain a provision to secure to 1he people of the proposed state the right of inter-marriage between white and Indian races"
 such a provision if inserted at all would naturally find a place in the hill in the so-caIled irreVocable or dinance. IL was offered especially as an amendment to the Arizona side Of the bill since such marriages are not now prohibited in Mexico.
 The dispatches from Washington In relation to, the statehood bill have been silent as to Father Ketcham's proposal. but in the discussion of il in the committee no objection was developed. on the contrary Chair man Reveridge seemed to concede the reasonableness of it, its purpose be- ing of course to solve the Indian question.
 The following colloquy ensued at the hearing:
 Father Ketcham: The Territory Of Arizona at the present time prohibits the intermarriage of Indians with AIexicans or with white people. There are over go. 900 Indians in Ari- zona IT this condition continues. the result will be that the State of Ari- zona will always have a separate and distinct body of people within its bor- ders. because it ignores the natural right Of intermarriage. I think that ought to be rectified by the enabling act.
 The Chairman: That would be se- cured by merely leaving out the fea- ture which you point to as being objectionable.
 senator Hughes: It would leave it 10 the state.
 Father Ketcham: It would leave 1t to the state.
 Senator Hughes: I think it would be left there anyhow. It would be under the moral obligation
 Father Ketcham: We feel that it would be more apt to be carried out if it were stipulated that it should be done
 Senator Hughes: Is there any other state or territory in which the con stitution includes provision relat- ing to marriage between Indians and whites?
 Father Ketcham: I do not know that there is I do not know that any such situation as this has had to be met heretofore. The people of this country seem to have little or no repugnance to the intermarriage of Indians and whites. The Five Civi- lized tribes
 Senator Hughes: Do not the In dians object to it?
 Father Ketcham: No, Senator. Well of course some of the old Indians may object
 Senator Hughes: I know some of them do. That is the reason l asked the question
 Father Ketcham: They may ob- feet: but they do not object to the right The Indians want the peo- pie to be free, but they may object to the carrying out of that right in in dividual instances. The Indians do not care much for legislation on these subjects. They want to be free. Take the Five Civilized tribes of Ok lahOma. They came from the south ern states They were southern tribes - the Chickasaws. Cherokees, Choctaws, Seminoles and Muskogees or Creeks. They have long had a per centage of white citizens. of inter
 
 great extent southerners. They are nearly all southerners from Alabama, Mississippi. Tennessee. North Caro- lima and the various southern states. Even in the south there never seems 10 have been, at least in later times, any objection to this inter-marriage.
 The Chairman: Your observation is. ] take it from what you say, and from your wide experience in this field of work, that the inter marriage of In dians and whites should not be de- nied; but on the contrary. you sug- gest it should be actually affirma- lively provided for?
 Father Ketcham: Yes: that this right should be protected by positive legislation, so that the Indians may not at some future time be deprived Of thlS right
 Another point is that the only real solution of the Indian question is in ter marriage. and a gradual inter mingling-
 The Chairman: Absorption.
 Father Ketcham: Absorption. That is the only logical and natural solu- tion: and that will be the solution wherever such laws as this do not prevail Moreover, the fact that Ari- zona has this law does not prevent intermingling; it simply puts d pre- mium, as it were, on illegitimacy. Why not allow legitimate marriage? Why prohibit it by law?
 Senator Hughes: What is the par agraph that you refer to there, Doc tor?
 Father Ketcham: This is to be in serted after line 20. section IS, on page 30.