Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1882-04-06
NO STATE ADMISSION.

gates from the Sound, opposed the PROPOSE
ton TO include the three northern counties
Of Idaho within the boundaries of the pro-
posed State of Washington, on the ground
that it would provoke hostility from Idaho
and other Territories similarly situated and
prevent our admission probably for a mum
Der Of years. Subsequent events prove them
to have been true prophets. This was &C.
knowledsed at the time by some of the op-
position members Of the convention, but who
averred it better to stay out OF the Union
awhile longer than to 80 in without these
counties. Some of the western Delegates
headed by Larrabee energetically opposed
.his theory, but they were IN the minority
and these counties were included in the
boundaries as defined by the first article Of
the constitution. All Of the eastern Dele
gases, irrespective of party. warmly SUP
ported this annexation, avowedly for the
reasos. that these three counties naturally
belonged to this Territory and would in.
crease our population and wealth--two i'm
portant considerations to form State Gov
eminent, and secretly, as the real motive
for their earnest and united action, the in
creased dominion Of Eastern Washington to
be secured, thus drawing the geographical
center Of the new State near Walla Walla,
also the center Of the population, and there
by give to that section a prepondcrance in
the Legislature and controlling voice in con-
ventions and at the polls. This is still the
theory Of Mr.. Brents, and the bill shorn OF
these three counties as reported by the COM
mittee stands about the same show of pass
ing o. would bill to admit Alaska for the
reason that Mr.. Brents' will oppose the bill
in its present shape. Northern Idaho
has become the bone Of contention. 1t will
probably keep Washington out of the Union
Tor several years longer than it might have
been had our Territorial boundary been al
lowed in the beginning to become the limits
81 the proposed State However, q Delegate
from Western Washington will probably
take Mr.. Brents' place in the House next
year and then Washington Territory may
have Delegate in Congress instead Of an
agent for Northern Idaho and Eastern
v Arlington. Clarke County Register.
In reading the above one can form
but an indefinite conception Of the mo-
tive that prompts the writer to relate
his narrative Of matters in the conven
ton of 1878, unless it he that he il
opposed to North Idaho's coming into
the new State. Brents complains that
this same paper has done him injury
in securing the report Of the commit
too favorable to including North Idaho.
II Is true that Larrabce and Bradshaw
did oppose these northern counties in
the convention, pretending that they
were not opposed to including them il
they could be included. But the gen.
eral belief Of the convention was that
the real motive Of their objection was
that it would give the balance of pow
or in the State to the people east of the
Cascades and defeat the ambition Of
these gentlemen tor positions under the
new State Government. The majority
Of the convention regarded the includ-
ing Of these counties Of great import
ance to the welfare of all Of Washing.
ton, and q matter of justice to the
people Of North Idaho who were so is
elated from the southern part Of Idaho
n oil the relations Of life. The Req.
sster is mistaken when it says that the
eastern Delegates secretly desired this,
with the chief motive of increased do
minion Of Eastern Washington and to
draw the geographical center of the
State near Wslla Walla and give to
the East q preponderance in the Legis-
lsture and controlling voice in con-
ventions and at the polls. The people
Of Washington both East aud Yves. by
their Legislature. invited North Idaho
to take part in the convention with a
view to including these counties, and
to have framed constitution leaving
these counties out, would have done
violence to the act Of the Legislature
authorizing convention. Tho consti.
tuition adopted with its boundaries was
what the people asked for. both 10
Washington and North Idaho, and to
have denied this at the instance Of two
members of the convention would have
been usurpation on the part of the
Delegates. and the adoption Of the con.
stitution BY so large o vote shows that
the Delegates had the approval of the
people, and the farther fact that Walla
Walla county stood almost alone in
opposing the adoption with the bouu-
daries made to inclule North Idaho
aaows that the adoption of these coun-
ties in the convention, was not done
to give the preponderancs of power in
favor OF Walla Walla ss centre. The
ksg'ster man is all Off in his insinua.
hons, and developes the auimus of his
mind when he suggests that Western
Washington will send Delegate in
place OF Bren&s next year who will no.