The Chandler News. (Chandler, Okla.), Vol. 10, No. 16, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 3, 1901 Page: 1 of 10
ten pages : ill. ; page 16 x 11 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
-jK
The Chandler News.
TENTH YEAR.
THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF LINCOLN COUNTY.
CHANDLER, OKLAHOMA, THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1901.
o
AT
~ ft)
NUMBER 10.
Good Wagon Roads arc More to be Desired than Add ■ ional Railroads
INTOLERANCE
AND
STATEHOOD.
IT is interesting and instructive to note the
freedom and familiarity with which some
of the politicians who were not at the South
McAlester convention discuss the proceed-
ings of that body, the per-
sonnel of its membership,
and even the motives that
prompted the delegates to
attend and participate in the deliberations.
These men, of course, must depend entirely
upon newspaper reports and hearsay evi-
dence for their information, and the states-
manlike (?) unanimity with which they reject
the testimony of those who might be friendly
to single statehood and accept with unques-
tioning simplicity the assertions of those
who are bitter, avowed enemies of the move-
ment ought to prove to the most skeptical
that these men are determined to convince
'T'HE utterances of JudgeBurfordon this
'"pHERE i some people in Oklahoma who
— subject aVe similar to those of some of assert that they are opposed to a union
the other politicians and office-holders of the of Oklahoma with the Indian territory^ and
territory, and while we all regard the chief , who insist that it will be better for the tei-
justice as an authority on | ritory to form and main-
matters of law, we are i SOME tain a state government
SOME
JUDICIAL
IDEAS.
SOME
PECULIAR
THINGS.
without including the In-
dian territory. They sup-
forced to conclude that his
views on statehood are
biased by his individual preferences and port their theory with elaborate arguments,
prejudices to the same extent as those of; and yet when it is suggested that Oklahoma
anv other citizen, and that, in his zeal to be given statehood at once with her pros-
make his position unmistakable, he, like | ent boundaries and that the Indian territory
other men, is sometimes careless? in his j be added later when the tribal governments
choice of language. He succeeded . in mak- j shall have been extinguished and the citizens
ing use of some big words, but they will not!of the Indian territory shall have gained ti-
seriously frighten the friends of single ! ties to their lands, these persons waive their
statehood. Why should there be anything j objections to statehood with tfie Indian ter-
"illegitimate" about the convention? If the ritory and give their assent very readily to
Luaju llJU "misalliance" was only an "attempted" one, I the proposition. This suggest some ques-
themselves that they are right. The men where does the "offspring" come from? If tions If the lack of school lands and public
, /—• . ■ « r 4i - l.i a • it... Z mi fnnr
building lands is a barrier to single state-
hood now would it not still be an objection i
Or is it to be understood that the objection
to immediate single statehood is that would
give the people of the Indian territory equal
would lessen their chances of gaining cov-
eted official positions? Does it not seem in-
consistent that the mere matter of making
the addition of the Indian territory a post-
script or an afterthought should remove the
objection to single statehood ? There is a
who attended the South McAlester conven- the convention was "without authorized
tion from Oklahoma are men who have been parentage," the statehood conventions held
in nearly every statehood convention that'in the past in Oklahoma had the same mis-
has been held in this territory and they have fortune, for this one was cajled in the same
frequently had reason to feel that their j manner as those, and no one who signed the ^ —t *
wishes and rights tfere not properly re-1 call for this convention has sought to'con-! representation and authority in determining
garded in statehood conventions, and yet ceal the fact, nor has any one who partici- the matters that pertain to statehood i l an
they have not made it a practice to substi- pated as a delegate wanted or tried to it be that any of our Oklahoma "statesmen
tute ridicule and abuse and misrepresents- shirk the responsibility. As to the fear that union with the Indian tein oiy
tion for reason and argument when combat- convention being without "authorized crea-
ting the ideas of those who held a different tion," the question naturally occurs: From
view in regard to the interests of whom must authority be obtained when cit-
the territory. It is repeatedly asserted zens desire to hold a convention? Has any
by the separate statehood papers that man or have any set of men the exclusive
the convention was a tizzle—a conclusion right to say when statehood conventions shall,
due, perhaps, to-the fact that the convention be held and what they shall do whan held ? j similar inconsistency on the part of some ol
did not break up in a row and adjourn while Is it not sufficient that citizens of the terri- the Indiaij territory people. ley o ject.
the committee on credentials was still at; tory met in convention and elected delegates j very strongly to statehood or lerritoryhjiod
work-and yet, to judge from the columns and that those delegates saw tit to meet in j with Oklahoma on .the ground t hat they
of space devoted to the convention and from 1 convention? Is this not the way that state- must for several yeai s yet pay t i< ti1 >a
the urgent appeals for a different convention hood conventions have been "created" in the j tax, regardless of a state or a territorial
to counteract the results of this one, it has past? Or is there a statute governing the jgovernment, and that to add to this tribal
had some effect already and is likely to exert mat ter that is not known to common people? tax a tax for state or territorial purposes
further influence. One of the latest utter-' Are wo to understand that a convention'that j would make the burden unbearable. I his
auces against the South McAlester conven- is not held under a supervision of territorial seems all right and is certainly a good argu-
t ion is from the chief justice of the territory, Officials is an "abortion"? We do not pre- ment, but the funny part of it is that many
who, in a signed letter in last Sunday's tend that the advocates of single statehood of the people who urge this leason mo.-,t
Wichita Eagle, says that the convention are infalliable nor that they are men of strongly are in favor of the Moon hi to
"was the illegitimate offspring of an at- superior wisdom or greater patriotism than , create a separate territorial government tor
tempted misalliance. It was without re- other citizens, but we do insist that they are j the Indian territory. To maintain a separate
sponsible parentage or authorized creation.: entitled to be treated with respect and to be | territorialor state govern ment without theaid
Those who attempted to contract an engage-' regarded as just as honest and sincere and |of Oklahoma would cost a great deal more
ment had no authority to speak for either Just as well-informed as those who_hol_d_op_-, tharfif the burden was shared by Oklahoma
posite views. As long as a convention is
_ j composed of sober, earnest, thoughtful men i
ated by the self-appointed mediators." In and goes about its business in an intelligent
another place he says, "I speak advisedly and orderly manner, we can see no reason
when I say that a very large majority of the . why it should be referred to as an "abort ion
people of Oklahoma prefer and desire state- j or an "illegitimate offspring" and its mem-
hood for Oklahoma alone." And then, not- j bers designated as "self-appointed iii^Ii-
withstanding the alleged repudiation of the ators." If the resolutions or other proceed-
'bride" and "groom" by the "self-appointed j ings of the convention were unjust or mis-
i • i* • _ — «. ~ t-'Unofitin \roil1rl it lint Vlf
bride or groom, and both have been r.p.di-1
either So there must be some other reason
why these Indian territory "statesmen" op-
pose a government with Oklahoma on the
ground that it would be still more expensive.
Is it not possible that they* too, have an eye
to the "loaves and fishes," and that they
wish to eliminate competition when it comes
to locating public institutions and electing
United States senators? Such things seem
to count in the Indian territory as well as in
Oklahoma.
mediators," the chief justice goes on to sav
that "the people of Oklahoma should get to-
gether at an early date and take such action
as will counteract any false impression Uiat
may have been created by the
Alester convention."
represented the situation, would it not be
far better to show wherein these utterances
were wrong than to call the convention
names? Assertions are easily made, but
South Mc- proof goes a long way further with most
• people.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Gilstrap, H. B. The Chandler News. (Chandler, Okla.), Vol. 10, No. 16, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 3, 1901, newspaper, January 3, 1901; (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc117234/m1/1/: accessed April 23, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.