Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1883-06-09
of United States and admitted as soor
as possible.

mission? Has congress no voice in it +?
Are We justified in starting state gov
eminent and ousting the territorial gov.
srnmsnt il congress shall fail to decide
the matter admitting half the territory
at the date We think it ought to do?
So long q We limit our action to con.
stitutlon making, and preparation for
statehood We are on solid ground
We can make new suit of clothes, put
them on and present Dakota thus clad
to congress, and with her population.
area, wealth, intelligence, virtue and re-
publican constitution, it will then be-
come the moral and legal duty of con-
Rress to welcome her to the sisterhood
of states. We should promptly and
without besitation do this. The absence
of an enabling act of congress is no ar
Rument against Us in view of the prece-
dents, and the failure of the last terri
torial legislature to secure the governors
signature to the act calling constitu-
tional convention is not against us. II
we analyzs the matter carefully We re.
alize that in fact territorial legislature
has no power in the premises. 1t is
created to be . territorial legislature and
to legislate for territory-not to pave
the way for its destruction and the build.
ing of something else upon its ruins.
This is the duty of the people and they
are moving regularly forward to this end
spontaneously. We can all pull to.
gether.
The abstract question of the ultimate
right Of revolution as the only redress
for wrongs We may properly discuss as
speculative question. It comes in proper
ly in an examination of the whole SUBJ
ject of the Law of the creation Of states,
but we shall never be called upon in Da-
kota to make practical application of the
doctrine. Revolution is sometimes right
but never legal. 1t is breaking of fet.
tere which cannot be unlocked.
1 beg leave to protest against accept
ing the Michigan case in Doug, as law
and ignoring the contrary decision by
disinterested and equally responsible
court-the supreme court of OHIO in
Myers vs.. the Manhattan bank, quoted
above. JOHN A. OWEN.
De Smet, June 8, 1888.
Because we believe it to be the frs
duty Of the press to admit free discus.
sion or this important project, we give
place with pleasure to the foregoing,
from the en- of an able lawyer.
But we must remark, in reply, that
upon some points Mr.. Owen has entirely
inexperienced the views of General
Campbell. As we understand the latter
gentleman, he does not advocate any.
thing like collision with the United
States government. On the contrary
he emphatically advocates the reverse
He advocates presenting to congress Q
petition for admission and recognizes the
fact that congress has the physica
power to refuse such admission. The
Press and Dakotaian has, perhaps, taken
more radical ground than this, in itf
faith in the constitutional guarantee o.
the right of the people to govern them
selves. General Campbell, however
judging from the convincing argument.
offered by him stands squarely on the doc
trine of the supreme court of the United
States - that congress has no constitu
tional power to refuse such admission
if the state constitution presented is re
publican in form and if the new state ha
the population and territory requisit
for state. All that it is necessary TO
Dakota to de is to follow the example Q
Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan and Oregon
their acts being approved by congress
They formed state governments. The
experienced no collision-no revolution
Jackson declared that they had the righ
to organize state government. Adam
said 30. Buchanan said 80. Taylc
said 60, Thirteen congresses hav
affirmed the ruling of those president
Dakota seeks to do only what has alread
been done by thirteen states and hs
thirteen times been approved by col
gress. There was no menace in the d
clsion of the supreme court of Michiga
and there would be none in a similar d
, cision by the supreme court of Dakot
The case of Myers vs. the Manhatta
bank GO Ohio state reports 259 in whit
the Ohio court decided that the Detro
Young Mems society's acts were i
valid was turned mainly {
these two grounds: That the proper
In question being in strip of COUNT
which, though at first claimed by Mict
gan, had been surrendered to Ohio.
, the time the Ohio court rendered Il
. decision this strip was part of Oh
and not Of Michigan and that-1st, Il
locus had never been in the state
Michigan; ed, if it once had it was n
!. now, and no act Of the state of Michlg.
can have legislative effect over any pa
: of Ohio. 1t is true that the Ohio cou
went on to discuss Il
b validity of the government Of Il
d state Of Michigan and to give an opinit
" that it was not state government b
O fore it's admission into the union. B
II this act was clearly of no effect, as &
court Of Ohio had no jurisdiction ov
!, <ha akn ~ Nfich,nop Tho oonrfs oS ~
y stste cannot pass upon the legality