Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1882-12-29

Au CuluOTlal III tuo OlOu4 Ghllb IE668
states that the Press and Da-
kotaian charges Delegate Petit
grew with refusal to introduce in con.
gress the memorial of the Yankton
county taxpayers, and. for the purpose Of
finding out the facts, the editor Of the
Press wrote Mr.. Pettigrew and received
the following in reply: AZ
received u copy of the memorial on the bth-
of December, accompanied by a short note from
George II. Scougal. asking me TO present IL TO
the house. On the 9th or 9th presented II,
and had 1T printed in the Congressional Record.
This accords to hairs breadth with
our statement of the case. The Press 4
Dakotaian did not charge that Delsgate
Pettigrew had refused to introduce the
memorial. Our issue Of Dec. 9Th sid:
Our information i. th.t PsttiEEew .'taalsd y
duce the memorial in the house.
The same issue contained tie follow
ing telegram:
presented the the YanIton on: county % memorial % and
had it properly referred in the senate. Petit.
grew has failed to comply with the request Of
the committee, but Chairman Burrows will ~
BY his own admission he had ssfalled
to comply" up to that date. Later. on
the Sth of December, we wrote:
His lPettigrew's] neglect to introduce the
memorial OF Yankton county, relative 70 the
remove the final objection to statehood, was .
suspicious circumstance. Ef4
On the 2lst Of December we published
an interview with member of the COM
mittee who had just returned from Wash
ington and in that interview occurred
the following paragraph:
Delegate Pettigrew has given the committee
no material aid in its effort to remove the bar
to admission. He attended but one meeting
the bond bill could not pass. He neglected to
| comply with the request of the COMMITTEES to
introduce nee. ths M Yankton county memorisi in the
had introduced it in the senate. He then put it
in unwiliingly, under pressure from Repreeen-
msef ho to p5ssins =
his sworn duty. ~
This is the history of the case and il
contains all We have said about Mr.. Pet
tigrew in this connection. We have ne
where charged him with q refusal to in
troduce the memorial, but with neglect.
and his own testimony sustains the
charge. It was the desire Of the Yank.
ton committee and the members of the
territorial committees in both branches
of congress to have the memorial intro.
duced in the senate and the house on
the same day. Mr.. Saunders laid it be.
fore the senate on the 9Th Of December.
MIR. Pettigrew introduced it in the house
on the 9th or 9th and then only under q
threat from Mr.. Burroughs that he
would introduce it himself and after he
had been repeatedly urged to take the
step. During these three or four day,
his action was failure to comply" will
the wishes of the committee and it wa.
during these three or four days that we
published the statements to which the
Sioux Falls Press takes exceptions. That
paper further complains that Delegate
Pettigrew was notplaced upon the com
mittee of Dakota citizens who wers
given charge of the bond matter. ani
that he has been generally ignored il
the matter. If Dakota had possessed 8
representative in Washington to whom
the people of Yankton county could hav.
entrusted so important an affair. therl
would have been no need of a committe.
to go to Washington. As they felt tha
they could not trust him, it would hard
ly be expected that they would maxi
him member of the committee. We'd,
not know what course Mr.. Pettigrev
would have taken, but it is usually nee
essaryto decide such questions on tn
evidence and the Indications. It va
not reasonable to assume in advanc
that man who has cursed Yankto
from one end OF Dakota to the othe
would enter very vigorously into
scheme to help it out OF bad scrap.
Subsequent experience has demonstrate
the wisdom of the plan adopted b
Yankton county.