Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1882-12-08

we puDllsn IN anOthef column tele- |
graphic article purporting to contain the
the views of Mr.. Pettigrew upon the sub
ject of the admission of southern Dakota.
In the article the delegate from Dakota
is made to assert that it will be impossi-
bile to pass the bill admitting Dakota
and in connection Herewith he does not
neglect to make an unstatesmanlike
aing at Governor Ordway. This tele.
gram was preceded by another of
similar import, also inspired by Mr..
Pettigrew, upon which we
have previously commented. The fre-
quency with which these statements are
forwarded to the people at the instiga-
tion of Dakota's representative leads to
something stronger than suspicion that
heis preparing the public mind for q
failure which he is seeking to aid. It
may be that he knows more about the
intentions of congressman than other
people do, but we do not believe 1t. 1t
is yet too early to form SO decided an
opinion as he expresses. Even if he
feels in his own mind convinced that
such may be the case, it would be wis
dom on his part to keep still about it
and not further damage the cause by
sending out daily telegraphic announce
ments to the effect that the movement
isra failure. Under the circumstances,
ms portrayed in the newspapers, we can
hardly reach any other conclusion
than that Mr.. Pettigrew has set his heart
upon division and against admission.
The Sioux City Journal, an outside pa
per, takes the following view of the mat
ter:
If Delegate Pettigrew. of Dakota, is correct
~ reported by Washington correspondents. it
enthusiasm to expend at this session Of con
gress in support of the peuding bill for the ad-
| mission of the southern portion of the territory
creation Of two terrtoral % % in leu ieu
Of the one, and the temper of his language il
quite conclusive that if Dakota legislation in
territorial division he will be pleased. Perhaps
this attitude on the part of the de!egate1 has
been foreseen by the friends of statehood il
southern Dakota, for Coy. Ordway and Other
| influential and able representatives have beer
dispatched to Washington to guard and pro
mote this interest. The statehood issue is SC
generally supported in that portion of the ter.
ritory it proposed to erect into state that
MIR. Pettigrew will not presume to make oper
opposition to the admission bill; but, that he
will do any hard work in its behalf is hardly tc
/ be anticipated. The delegate-elec is from
northern Dakota, and with northern Dakota SCI
off as a new territory the delegateship, from
southern Dakota would be rcopened, with MIR
| Pettigrew's friends in charge, under the dea
made at Grand Forks of the committee ma.
chinery of the dominant party. 1t is probable
that Mr.. pettigrtew rev thinks thinks he could in tha
| election, and it seems quite certain that he is
| ambitious to make the trial 1t has always beer
the fault OF Delegate PettigreW that he ha.
been too free with his mouth. This disclosure
of his present purposes goes to show that he i.
| still too fresh.
The possibility that we have been be
trayed by our own representative is now
rising before us, and should it prove te
be SO, it would form on appropriate ter
mination of his public career. His ne
glect to introduce the memorial of Yank
ton county, relative to the payment o
its debt, document calculated to re
move the final objection to statehood
was a suspicious circumstance. If hi
heart was in the work for the creation o
the state of Dakota, he would hasten t,
lplace such paper before congress, i,
spite of his hatred for the people o
Yankton county. Later proceedings upol
his part do not tend to inspire his con
stituents with confidence in the honest,
of his assertion that he proposes to d,
all he can for the admission of Dakota.