|
APPENDIX
THE FIRST STATE LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
|
Democrats
|
| Adair, T. L. Rider, Stillwater |
Love, J. R. McCalla, Marietta |
| Atoka, R. M. Rainey, Atoka |
Marshall, H. S. P. Ashby,
Simpson |
| Beckham, George C. Whitehurst,
Sayre |
Mayes, H. M. Butler, Pryor
Creek |
| Bryan, A. F. Ross, Durant
and J. H. Baldwin, Sterrett |
Murray, M. Turner, Davis |
| Caddo, Frank Stephens,
Apache, and C. C. Fisher, HInton |
Muskogee, A. J. Snelson,
Oktah, and Fred B. Branson, Muskogee |
| Canadian, M. B. Cope,
El Reno |
McCurtain, William H. Harrison,
Bokhoma |
| Carter, Leo Harris, Ardmore
and J. F. McCance, Newport |
McClain, Thomas C. Whitson,
Purcell |
| Cherokee, J. L. Manus,
Tahlequah |
McIntosh, W. B. Beck,
Fawn |
| Choctaw, W. A. Armstrong,
Boswell |
Nowata, Bert Tillotson,
Nowata |
| Cimarron, Frank L. Casteel,
Jurgenson |
Ottawa, A. D. Martin,
Miami |
| Cleveland, J. Vanderveer,
Noble |
Okfuskee, Thomas E. Wortman,
Okema |
| Coal, G. W. O'Neal, Oconee |
Oklahoma, A. T. Early,
Oklahoma City |
| Comache, J. Roy Williams,
Lawton |
Osage, J. B. Deyrele,
Romona |
| Craig, E. J. Hobdy, Blue
Jacket |
Payne, P. A. Ballard,
Coyle |
| Creek, W. D. Stone, Kiefer |
Pontotoc, Frank Huddleston,
Ada |
| Custer, Howell Smith,
Thomas |
Pottawatomie, Milton Bryan,
Shawnee; W. T. Durham, Tecumsah, and W.
S. Carson, Asher |
| Delaware, L. B. Smith,
Thomas |
Pawnee, William Murdock,
Ralston |
| Delaware, L. B. Smith,
Grove |
Pittsburg, H. M. McElheny,
Indianola and J. L. Hendrickson, Quentin |
| Ellis, Elmer J. Jesse,
Gage |
Pushmatah, Ben Williams,
Finley |
| Garvin, W. M. Lindsey,
Elmore, and Wm. Tabor, Hart |
Rogers, John F. Tandy,
Chelsea |
| Grady, Robert M. Johnson,
Minco, and A. S. Riddle, Chickasha |
Roger Mills, Joseph Paschal, Rankin |
| Garfield, A. H. Ellis,
Orlando |
Sequoyah, Winchester Allen,
Salisaw |
| Grant, J. N. Smith, Manchester |
Seminole, J. B. Castain,
Little |
| Greer, G. W. Briggs, Granite,
and Dr. Pendergraft, Hollis |
Stephens, W. B. Anthony,
Marlow |
| Harper, J. W. Durst, Supply |
Tillman, H. R. King, Davidson |
| Haskell, Ed. D. Boyle,
Chant |
Tulsa, C. L. Holland,
Tulsa |
| Hughes, Edward Swengle,
Wetumka |
Texas, E. J. Earl, Goodwell |
| Jackson, W. E. Banks,
Hess |
Washington, A. F. Vandaventer,
Bartlesville |
| Jefferson, Charles London,
Hastings |
Washita, David Smith,
Cordell |
| Johnston, W. H. Murray,
Tishomingo |
Woods, W. F. Albot, Alva |
| Kay, Logan Hawkins, Tonkawa,
and Q. T. Brown, Braman |
Woodward, I. W. Hart,
Woodward |
| Kiowa, J. T. Armstrong,
Hobart, and J. Faulkner, Manitou |
Bryan and Atoka, W. A. Durant,
Durant |
| Lattimer, James E. Stivers,
Wilburton |
Craig and Rogers, John Ezzard,
Chelsea |
| LeFlore, Charles Broom,
Braden |
Comanche and Stephens, Amiel
H. Japp, Lawton |
| Lincoln, H. M. Jarrett,
Stroud |
Caddo, Canadian and Cleveland,
Ben Wilson, Union City |
| |
Creek and Tulsa, W. Norville,
Tulsa |
394
|
395
| Johnston and Coal,
C. A. Skeen, Wapanucka |
15th, George O.
Johnson, Fort Cobb, and L. K. TAylor,
Chickasha |
| Pontotoc and Seminole,
Edgar S. Ratliff, Ada |
17th, J. Elmer
Thomas Lawton, and D. M. Smith, Duncan |
| Pitsburg and Hughes,
Ben F. Harrison, Calvin |
18th, J. C. Granham,
Marietta, and J. C. Little, Sulpher |
| Payne and Pawnee,
George D. Hudson, Cushing |
19th, R. P. Wynne,
Lexington, and , H. S. Blair, Katie |
| Pottawatomie and
Lincoln, H. G. Stetmund, Chandler |
20th, T. F. Memminger,
Atoka, and Jesse H. Matchett, Meade |
| Sequoyah and LeFlore,
E. Z. Moore, Oklodge |
21st, E. T. Sorrells,
Milton |
| Washita and Custer,
L. L. Reeve, Dill |
22d, H. S. Holman,
Wetumka |
|
Republican
Members
|
23d, R. M. Roddie,
Ada |
| Alfalfa, W. H.
H. Allen,* Goltry |
24th, W. P. Stewart,
Antlers |
| Beaver, Abel J.
Sands, Knowls |
25th, W. M. Redwine,
McAlester |
| Blaine, W. H.
Bowdre, Watonga |
26th, W. M. Franklin,
Madill |
| Dewey, W. G. Smith,
Seiling |
27th, E. E. Brook,
Muskogee, and Campbell Russell, Warner |
| Garfield, J. M.
Porter, Enid |
28th, P. C. Conn,
Gans |
| Kingfisher, Harvey
Utterbach, Kingfisher |
29th, J. M. Keys,
Pryor Creek |
| Lincoln, James
Lockwood, McLoud |
30th, E. M. Landrum,
Tahlequah |
| Logan, J. S. Shear,
W. H. Chappell, Guthrie, and Herbert
E. Stagner, Coyle |
31st, J. P. Yeager,
Tulsa |
| Major, Joe Sherman,
Estelle |
32d, J. H. Strain,
Wann |
| Noble, Charles
Frasier, Red Rock |
Republicans
|
| Oklahoma, C. G.
Jones, Oklahoma City, C. R. Day, Edmond |
3d, A. E. Updegraff,
Fairvalley |
| Okmulgee, W. C.
McAdoo, Okmulgee |
7th, R. S. Curd,
Alilne |
| Wagoner, A. D.
Orcutt, Coweta |
12th, Harper S.
Cunningham, Guthrie |
| Alfalfa and Grant,
J. B. Evans, Pond Creek |
16th, Emory D.
Brownlee, Kingfisher |
| Garfield and Kingfisher,
Eugene A. Watrous, Enid |
32d, H. E. P.
Stanford, Okmulgee |
|
Members of
the Senate
|
COMPOSITION
OF POPULATION
IN INDIAN TERRITORY
|
|
Democratic
Members
|
|
| 1st. J. S. Morrison,
Hooker, and E. A. Agee, Putnam |
Some
interesting lights on the composition of the population
of the old Indian Territory portion of Oklahoma
are afforded in a study of the nativity of the
749 persons included in a biographical work on
theTerritory published in 1901. The persons represented
were from nearly every section of old Indian Territory,
were mostly heads of families, and "representative
citizens." It is fair to say, therefore,
that the decductions drawn from a study of this
group of citizens would be quite an accurate index
of the nativity of the people who then composed
the Territory's Population, the better and more
substantial classes being under consideration. |
| 4th, Frank Matthews,
Mangum |
| 5th, Thomas Moore,
Oluskee |
| 6th, R. A. Billups,
Cordell, and J. J. Williams, Weatherford |
| 8th, P. S. Goulding,
Enid |
| 9th, Edmund Brazell,
Lamont, and Sylvester Soldani, Ponca City |
| 10th, Henry S.
Johnson, Perry |
| 11th, Clarence
Davis, Bristow |
| 13th, M. F. Eggerman,
Shawnee, and S. A. Cordell, Chandler |
| 14th, Roy Stafford,
Oklahoma City, and W. H. Johnson, Calumet |
*Unseated.
|
396
It may be safely assumed
that the average age of the persons considered was
at least thirty years, hence some opportunity is offered
for drawing inferences in the fact out of the 749
persons, 198, or more than 25 per cent, were born
in Indian Territory. Of these 198, only a comparatively
few were fullblood Indians, hence it appears that
the fusion of blood had taken place not later than
the decade of the sixties in the case of those who
were of the mixed type; or on the other hand, the
pure whites among the 198 natives belonged to families
that had intruded in the Territory, in the majority
of instances, soon after the war. The mere fact that
over one-fourth of the whole number of persons represented
were born in Indian Territory is remarkable, when
we consider the persistency of the belief among the
average Americans that Indian Territory has been occupied
by civilized people during only the last few years.
Next of interest aside from the consideration
of the natives of Indian Territory are those who came
from the adjacent states. Texas furnished the largest
quota of her natives, and it should also be said that
a large number of those under consideration, though
natives of other states, had resided in Texas before
moving into Indian Territory. Of the 551 citizens
not natives of Indian Territory, 74 were natives of
Texas, 40 of Arkansas, 39 of Missouri and 15 of Kansas.
Thus nearly a third of those not natives of Indian
Territory were born in the contiguous states. Of the
total of 749, 332 were born in states east of the
Mississippi river or in foreign countries. Eight were
born in Canada and eleven in foreign countries.1
EDITORIAL COMMENT
ON STATEHOOD
AND THE CONSTITUTION
As an extreme example
of the editorial and news comment on the constitution
that went the rounds of the press in opposition to
the fundamental laws of Oklahoma, is an editorial
that appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer of July 10,
1907. It shows both partisanship in opinion and lack
of first-hand information as to real conditions, but
now that the questions involved have been settled,
it is an interesting expression of the manner in which
the constitution was opposed before the instrument
was submitted for the approval of the people. The
editorial is as follows:
Unless
the work is done by some person who has little else
to occupy his mind the Oklahoma constitution seems
to be beyond the bounds of analysis and explanation,
except to say that it is
[Footnotes]
1The nativity of the 741
persons above considered is shown in detail as follows:
Indian Territory................198
New York.........................6
Texas..................................74
Louisiana.........................6
Tennesee.............................52
England............................5
Mississippi...........................51
Michigan..........................4
Arkansas.............................40
New Jersey.......................3
Missouri..............................39
Maryland..........................3
Georgia...............................38
Ireland.............................3
Alabama..............................35
Vermont...........................3
Kentucky............................31
Wisconsin.........................2
Illinois................................25
California..........................2
Indiana...............................20
West Virginia.....................2
Virginia...............................19
Scotland............................2
Kansas.................................15
Minnesota.........................1
North Carolina.....................14
Germany...........................1
Pennsylvania........................11
India.................................1
Canada..................................8
Switzerland.......................1
South Carolina......................7
Spain.................................1
Iowa.....................................6
______________________
749
|
397
a miserable botch, seemingly
put together at hap-hazard by cowbows [cowboys?],
"squaw men" and adventurers from the states.
A few editors have undertaken to comprehend and dissect
it. If they are right in their conclusions—and
they do not seem to be moved by prejudice—Oklahoma
should not be admitted as a state until it has an
intelligent and respectable organic law. The main
object of all that has been done in the proposed combination
of Oklahoma and Indian Territory for statehood is
the booming of a few upstart carpetbaggers for the
principal offices in the proposed new state. If President
Roosevelt could be justified in any of the acts of
domination and bossism with which he has been charged
it would be in simply ignoring or dictatorially overthrowing
the work of the Oklahoma constitution makers and remitting
the unprepared territories to an organization wholly
under the control of the federal government and leaving
them to remain in a territorial condition until Congress
takes serious hold of the situation.
There are many excellent and highly
qualified people who have grown up with the territory,
but in anticipation of statehood the territories seem
to have been overrun by a lot of scalawag politicians
from the states, who are up to all the tricks and
who are reaching out for the best places in the public
service, for which they are wholly unfit.
Added to this disadvantage is the conferring
of citizenship on Indians and half-breeds, who are
tolerable only because they are a little past the
war dance and scalping stage of savagery. It was a
great mistake to make this combination of Oklahoma
and Indian Territory. The people of the United States
have still a great many "wards" who are
not fit for any sort of citizenship. The association
of the half-civilized with the white scalawags who
are bent only on their own profit would make trouble
even if the proposed new state had a sound and conservative
constitution.
One writer says: "This foolish
document delimits counties and districts. It leaves
absolutely nothing to the people either now or in
the future with respect to the matter. Yet everybody
knows that a few years may see the counties and districts
which are now given prominence at the lowest degree
in the progress of the state, and other counties and
districts which are now at the bottom raised to the
top. This has happened so often in the history of
the various states that Oklahoma positively makes
itself ridiculous by trying to stop the hands on the
dial of the plate of history. The most amusing part
of this business is that the proposed constitution
is voluminous on the subject of initiative and referendum,
and yet it takes out of the hands of future voters
for perhaps half a century t come anything like an
independent action on their own part with respect
to the affairs in which they are certain to be most
interested."
This is only a little of the current
indictment of the new state scheme. It is doubtful
if the new constitution guarantees a republican form
of government. It smacks of an oligarchy. It looks
like a protectorate of upstarts who think that government
is an institution for the promotion of private fortunes.
There is no great demand in the country
for the immediate admission of Oklahoma and Indian
Territory. They would get along very well in a territorial
condition for many years yet. The fellows who expect
to get the pickings are the only ones who are in a
hurry to add another star to the flag, with a "coopered-up"
and unstatesmanlike organic law. Arizona and New Mexico
have been kept out on account of a union that would
violate primary principles and make the people forever
unhappy. There is no more necessity for expedition
in the case of Oklahoma and Indian Territory.
The states have rights, the most of
them paramount. The territories are under the direction
of the federal government. Congress and the president
should be not only cautious but defiant and severe.
The Oklahoma Constitution
It has
been rumored for several weeks that Speaker Cannon
and other leaders of the national Congress were anxious
to have the new Oklahoma constitution rejected by
the president. The rumors have all centered about
their alleged desire to keep Oklahoma out of the Union
at least until after the next presidential election,
so that its votes, which will certainly be Democratic,
will not count at that time. The various reasons for
rejecting the constitution which have been mentioned
have all been stated incidentally, and there has been
nothing to indicate that the objections went to the
merits of the constitution itself.
It is not pleasant to credit any men
in public life with purposes such as to make the substance
of these rumors, and it is all the more surprising
that the rumors continue, since for the more surprising
that the rumors continue, since for the success of
the plan there is involved the acquiescence of President
Roosevelt in the scheme, and the president, as is
well known, was a strong advocate of the admission
of the territory.
It is true that the constitutional convention
debated many articles which would certainly be of
doubtful permissibility in a state which must adhere
to republican forms of government if it is to be a
member of the Union. The president himself warned
the members of the convention that if they proposed
to withdraw from the railroads the rights of protecting
their own property which
|
398
other citizens and corporations
enjoyed, then he could not give his approval. But
the offending clauses were omitted and the danger
of rejection thereby removed.
Since then we have been told in the
main that the constitution is faulty because it includes
numerous rules and regulations which are rather subject
matter for legislative than for constitutional regulation.
That may all be very true on a theoretical basis,
but if the people of Oklahoma desire to have those
matters safeguarded in their constitution certainly
that is nobody's business except their own, and certainly
it does not make their constitution any the less of
a republican nature.
The tendency to make more elaborate
constitutions has been very marked throughout our
history. The Illinois constitutions indicate it to
some extent, though many other states have far outstripped
us in this respect. In our statute book, while the
federal constitution occupies six pages, the Illinois
constitution of 1818 occupies nine, that of 1848 sixteen
and that of 1870 twenty-four pages.
It is to be hoped that such rumors as
are now current will promptly come to an end, for
it is inconceivable that the president will reject
the Oklahoma constitution on any such grounds as are
suggested. If there are radical defects in the constitution,
that of course will be another matter.—Chicago
Record-Herald, May 5, 1907.
Oklahoma's Radical
Constitution.
The constitution
recently adopted by the people of Oklahoma and the
Indian Territory for the new state of Oklahoma is
a document illustrating the changing political order.
Quite irrespective of its merits it reflects admirably
many characteristic tendencies of the day. The common
suspicion of corporation management and fear of corporate
wealth, the more or less prevalent distrust of representative
government and even of the judiciary, the growing
belief in the effectiveness of pure democracy, the
resentment against the saloon element and its political
activities, are all embodied in its provisions. Indeed,
the constitution as originally drawn was regarded
by the convention leaders as providing so nearly a
pure democracy that they feared it might be rejected
by President Roosevelt on the ground that it contravened
the federal constitution's guarantee to each state
of a republican form of government. Accordingly by
amendment they restored to the legislature some of
the power of which originally they had deprived it.
But as it stands today the constitution is undoubtedly
the most radical organic law ever adopted in the Union.
Some of its provisions were suggested by Mr. W.
J. Bryan in a letter to the constitutional convention,
and its general tenor may perhaps be inferred from
Mr. Bryan's assertion later, in a speech at
Oklahoma City, that it was the best state constitution
ever written. The disclosures of recent years regarding
the legitimate methods of managers of great corporations
evidently had deeply impressed the members of the
convention. They deliberately set out to curb what
they called the "incursions of predatory wealth"—especially
those of stock-watering and monopolistic oppression.
The most stringent measures were adopted to guard
against these evils. A corporation commission was
created, to be composed of three elective members.
To this commission were granted large powers to compel
the fullest publicity in corporation affairs, and
to regulate the charges of public service corporations.
Over-capitalization was forbidden, and a section was
framed to prohibit the consolidation of incorporated
concerns. Even should one corporation come into control
of another to satisfy a debt, it must divest itself
of the ownership within a specified period. An anti-discrimination
provision was adopted intended to prevent a corporation
from "chubbing" a competitor out of business
by a temporary reduction in prices in a restricted
field. It directs that no concern shall, "for
the purpose of creating a monopoly or destroying competition
in trade," discriminate between persons or communities
by selling at different prices, after making allowance
for the cost of transportation. The state is expressly
empowered to engage in any industry. This was intended
to overcome the difficulty which Kansas encountered
when it attempted to operate an oil refinery in its
fight with the Standard Oil Company. The common law
relieving the employer from liability to employes
[employees] through the carelessness of a fellow servant
is abrogated, and the first legislature is directed
to enact laws protecting employes [employees]. In
various states the amount of damages recoverable from
a corporation in the event of injury or death is limited
by law. The Oklahoma legislature is forbidden to establish
any such limitation.
Toward the commonly accepted theory
of representative government the convention's attitude
was profoundly distrustful. Its suspicion of legislatures
appears in the enormous mass of detailed instructions
to future general assemblies with which it encumbered
the organic law. On the positive side it expressed
its belief in the people by establishing the initiative
and referendum throughout the state, including municipalities
and other subdivisions. A petition of eight per cent
of the voters may submit a proposed law to the people,
and one of fifteen per cent a proposed constitutional
amendment. A law enacted by the legislature may be
referred to the people by that body, or by a petition
of five per cent of the voters. On
|
399
the result of a vote
by the people the governor may not exercise the veto.
Similar provisions, as has been said, are extended
to the minor political divisions of the state, and
in cities franchise grants must be submitted to the
popular vote. Lest these provisions make the constitution
unrepublican, the convention inserted an authorization
to the legislature to repeal any law, on the assumption
that it would never venture to tamper with a measure
enacted by the people. To carry out further the democratic
idea the legislature is instructed to enact laws for
a mandatory primary system for all officers, including
United States senators. What is perhaps another instance
of this same distrust of the people's agents manifested
itself, too, in the provision that in orders of injunction
and restraint persons charged with contempt for an
act not committed in the presence of the court should
be punished only on a verdict by a jury. Such a procedure
has long been generally favored by organized labor.
The congressional enabling act required that the liquor
traffic be prohibited for twenty-one years in that
part of the new state comprised within the old Indian
Territory. Because of this requirement the voters
of the Indian Territory united with the Oklahoma Prohibitionists
to impose prohibition upon the whole of the new state
for the twenty-one year period. State-wide prohibition
was submitted apart from the constitution, and while
the returns were slow in coming in, the provision
seems to have carried. Of the other multitudinous
provisions of the constitution, it may be noted as
odd that so radical an instrument should have restricted
woman's suffrage to school elections. Two-cent railway
fare is established unless the rate should prove confiscatory
on any line. The governor is elected for four years
and is ineligible to immediate reëlection. To
guard against interference in politics, corporations
are forbidden to contribute to campaign funds.
Undoubtedly the constitution is open
to serious criticism. In his recent visit to Oklahoma
Secretary W. H. Taft censured the work of the
convention as strongly as Mr. Bryan had commended
it. His first objection was that the constitution
was a code of laws rather than a constitution, and
that it was excessively complicated. When it is recalled
that the document contains nearly fifty thousand words,
and that it goes into minute detail—it even establishes
the flash test for kerosene—the justice of the
criticism is obvious, though its importance may be
overestimated. Most of Mr. Taft's other objections
the friends of the constitution would maintain are
subjects for legitimate differences of opinion. He
feared that the initiative and referendum might prove
dangerous because of the large illiteracy of the people
in the Indian Territory and their lack of previous
political experience. He believed that the prohibition
of the consolidating of corporations might hinder
the states growth, and that the jury trial for contempt
was unwise. Further, he objected to the legislative
districting of the state by the constitutional convention,
which was overwhelmingly Democratic, and which carried
out a flagrantly partisan gerrymander. In addition
criticism has been made of the elective corporation
commission as likely to fall far short of the expectations
of its projectors. Time alone, however, can show to
what extent the constitution will prove workable,
and whether those of its provisions which undoubtedly
are admirable in intention will fulfill the purpose
of their framers. The organic law thus adopted has
been submitted to President Roosevelt to decide—in
a purely judicial capacity, as provided by law—whether
it complies with the provisions of the enabling act
and of the federal constitution. The president last
week indicated his intention to decide this question
in the affirmative, and he will accordingly by proclamation
announce the entrance to the Union of the forty-sixth
state. Officers for the new commonwealth were voted
on at the election at which the constitution was adopted.
The Democratic state ticket was elected.—The
Outlook, Oct. 5, 1907.
The Added Star
After eleven
years the flag gains another star. The celebration
of the adoption of the declaration of independence
132 years after the historic meeting in Philadelphia
will have no feature so notable as this. A new state
has been in existence for several months. But the
formal recognition of its admission into the Union
by representation upon the flag of the nation dates
from July 4, 1908.
The wondrous story of Oklahoma has been
told and retold. Its marvelous development within
a score of years has no parallel in the annals of
mankind. Not the last of the territories possibly
to be included within the "union of states none
can sever," it will be counted the last illustration
of the migration of peoples for which the United States
has been noted.
Partly southern and partly western,
it has taken to itself the best characteristics of
both sections of the country. In many of its features
it follows the life of its geographical zone. In others
it is dominated by influences from the western north.
The combination of forces gives it an individuality
and a strength for which other commonwealths have
found substantial basis in a storied past.
The wise policy which discouraged holdings
of more than one hundred and sixty acres has made
it a state of homes, peopled by a strong, vigorous
and self-reliant citizenship. These homes dotting
|
400
the landscape and quickly
recognized as the dominant feature of the environment
have made it essentially a democratic and prosperous
state. The people rule in Oklahoma as they do nowhere
else in such marked degree.
The constitution adopted for the commonwealth
attracted much attention because of its so-called
radical provisions. But these sections only reflect
the ideas of the time. In a measure every constitution
does that. If the ideas are wrong the constitution
will be changed when the errors are discovered. If
they are right and stand the test of time they will
remain as fundamental principles of statehood.
It is a bright star which is given a
place as the forty-sixth in the galaxy. Many of those
who watched the republic when it began its career
back in 1776 feared lest the extent of its territory
might prove its undoing. Many thoughtful men shrank
from the accession of a limitless domain in 1803 lest
the balance of power be lost to the eastern states.
No better evidence of the substantial strength of
the nation confronts the people as another birthday
of the country is celebrated than the general contentment
with which every one regards the addition of Oklahoma's
star to the flag of the United States.—Chicago
Tribune.
Oklahoma's Statehood
The admission
of Oklahoma to the union of the states will be hailed
with satisfaction on every hand. Its period of probation
has been well occupied. It has gathered a population
of earnest citizens who have come from many of the
older commonwealths to share in the fortunes of the
newest child of the republic. Its rich agricultural
regions have been occupied by a multitude of small
holders whose homes are to be seen everywhere as a
conspicuous feature of the landscape. That it will
quickly take its place as one of the important states
of the southwest no one doubts.
Larger in its area than that of thirty-one
other states, almost fifty times the size of Rhode
Island, it has an imperial domain capable of sustaining
a large population in comfort. If comparison of the
present population were made with that of many other
states at the time of their admission it would be
seen that Oklahoma far outranks some of those now
most famous. Ohio, and Indiana, and Illinois were
admitted to the Union with a population insignificant
in size when compared with that of Oklahoma today.
Oklahoma's admission comes in response
to a widespread sentiment that it is ready and worthy
of statehood. There is no shadow of fear for the future
when the temporary boom has lost its force. There
is to be no transition period in which the new commonwealth
will suffer from the acts of picturesque outlaws such
as those who marked a former generation on the border.
The first excitement about admission to the Union
being over, Oklahoma will settle down to a quiet career
as a representative western community, rich in the
strength brought by her immigrants form many an older
commonwealth.
One of the most interesting features
of the situation is furnished by the Indians. Many
years ago, when they were transferred from the southern
states, the leading tribes which have inhabited Indian
Territory were promised in solemn agreement that for
all time to come there should be no further encroachment
from the whites. Their new home beyond the Mississippi
should be for them and their descendants forever.
The language was explicit which declared that this
region should never be brought within the boundaries
of any state.
Andrew Jackson and his contemporaries
never dreamed that the banishment from Georgia, Alabama
and Mississippi meant settlement upon a tract of land
some day to be valuable to other whites for its rich
soil and its richer mineral stores. Their vision did
not pierce the future. Their language was the hasty
writing of a day, with little thought of a future
when descendants of southern whites and settlers from
the northern states as well might covet the Indian
lands once more.
Because of its area, the size and character
of its population, the quiet conditions under which
it secures statehood, and the peculiar element furnished
by the Indian portion of its people, the admission
of Oklahoma is a notable feature of the country's
history for the year. Taking its place as entitled
to equal privileges with the oldest of states, it
calls attention once again to this peculiar American
provision, in accordance with which one after another
territories have been admitted to a share in the glory
and sovereignty which the original thirteen won them
when the Union was established.—Chicago Record-Herald.
The Making of a
State
The admission
of Oklahoma to the full responsibilities of American
statehood on Saturday, November 16, 1907, makes the
date one of the most memorable in American history.
Something more than local pride shows itself in the
fullness with which the people of the new state itself
display their deep appreciation of the meaning involved.
Their possessions, their salutes of artillery, their
demonstrations of overflowing enthusiasm are not mere
boasts of their own achievements in creating a new
commonwealth which in seventeen years, since the organization
of Oklahoma as a territory, they have built "from
the ground up" into great-[ness]
|
401
[great]ness above that
of some states which had a hundred years the advantage
of them in the rights and privileges of membership
in the Union. Deeper and higher than any spirit of
local pride is the appeal they make to the United
States and to the world to recognize that instead
of being effete the principles of American greatness
out of which their results come find in such results
their vindication on November 16, 1907, as fully as
it could have been hoped for at Philadelphia on July
5, 1776.
The country still remembers as if it
were only yesterday what seemed to be the wild confusion
of the first rush across the Kansas line into what
was then a wilderness. If any one then did not understand
that controlling all other motives in this confusion
was the impulse to be first at the front in using
the last chance to build up an American commonwealth,
that impulse explains itself now in the change of
wilderness into one of the greatest productive areas
of the country, with scores of thriving towns and
cities, equipped for a growing civilization based
on equal opportunity under the law and equal responsibility
before the law. Within less than thirty days it was
to this that the wild, the magnificent, the apparently
lawless rush had reduced itself, and it is through
this great evolutionary force of American progress
that all subsequent results have been reached as they
now appear in vindication of American impulses of
constructiveness.
Having plowed out and harrowed out these
results from the bare ground in half a generation,
the million and a half of Americans who are now in
full control of their own future appeal through their
enthusiasm of the present to more than eighty million
other Americans to put their full confidence for the
future in the creative freedom of action for all good
purposes which makes this new state, the last built
up out of the soil of continental America, great as
an illustration of what the same impulses, the same
rights, the like energies mean for all in the results
of the past as these force open the way for the greater
results of the future.
Missouri, which opened the first highway
into the territory of the new state; Kansas, Arkansas,
Illinois, Iowa, Texas and other states, which supplied
it with the builders of its greatness, cannot fail
to share the enthusiasm Oklahoma itself feels in such
a demonstration that the way is still fully open for
progress. As there has been no greater single demonstration
yet given in American statemaking than this, so there
has been no other occasion calling for fuller strength
of confidence in the principles of progress, the equal
opportunity, the equal responsibility, which, as they
find standing room and working room on the bare ground,
build greatness out of it.—St. Louis Republic,
Nov. 17, 1907.
Payne and Oklahoma.
In all
that has been written upon the joyous occasion of
Oklahoma's admission to the union of states comparatively
little reference has been made to Captain David
L. Payne, the "Father of Oklahoma."
To this dauntless spirit, this typical pioneer, is
due more than to any other man in the splendid realization
of the dreams for complete development of that "Land
of the Fair God" to which he devoted much of
his life. It is regrettable that Payne did
not live to enjoy the full consummation of his plans,
but he did live to see himself fully vindicated. There
is no doubt that the future years will hold his name
in higher honor than now, and that a proper estimate
will be given the great work that he did.
Captain Payne, as described by
M. W. Reynolds, was "a typical boomer,
big-brained, big-hearted, broad-breasted and broad-shouldered.
He was built to carry a great burden of responsibility.
He was as brave as a Numidian lion." There are
many men living today who retain vivid impression
of this remarkable man—for he was remarkable,
and held his place with Kit Carson, Wild Bill,
California Joe, General Custer and other noted
westerners. But Payne was greater than any
of them in one thing—he had a great purpose which,
considered in the light of time was almost monumental.
He dreamed of a new empire of surpassing richness.
He knew the territory of the present Oklahoma as a
man knows his own dooryard. For years he roamed over
it and repeatedly conducted pioneers into it, only
to be removed time and again.
Like some other early explorers of the
west, Captain Payne was a man of considerable
education and native refinement. That he was well
acquainted with the affairs of civil life was shown
by the fact that he was elected to the Kansas legislature
from Doniphan county, and later from Sedgwick county,
"serving his people faithfully and satisfactorily."
He was also postmaster of Leavenworth at one time.
But the call of the wilderness possessed this sturdy
man, and he lived for his ambition. Hunting and scouting
were merely means to an end. Captain Payne
in his imagination pictured the Oklahoma of today,
the state of splendid cities and unrivaled richness
of soil and prosperous farms. In the early days of
his campaign for the opening of Oklahoma he made many
speeches in Wichita, Arkansas City, Caldwell, Winfield
and other southern Kansas cities, in which he told
of the greatness that was to come. Some of his hearers
received these prophecies as the utterances of an
unbalanced enthusiast. But many others knew Payne
to be a
|
402
man of sound sense and
judgment. His followers were numerous and he tried
repeatedly to establish colonies.
The memory of Captain Payne will
linger long, and the new state will some day give
his name that high place it deserves. Just now his
services are somewhat obscured by the horde of claimants
for pioneer honors, but time will separate the wheat
from the chaff and will link Captain David L. Payne's
character and work imperishably with the origin
and development of Oklahoma itself.—Kansas City
Journal, Nov. 17, 1907.
|
|
|
|
