Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1884-01-31

In lengthy article relative to the
right to separate statehood of both north
and south Dakota, the Fargo Republican
advances some valuable figures, from
which we take the following:
Nineteen states were admitted into the
union with less than 100000 population
and all but four of these were admitted
with less than $4,000 inhabitants, and it
is absolutely safe to say that Dakota has
to-day more than 10000 Inhabitants on
each side of the 46th parallel. The cen.
sus OF 1880 gave the territory as whole
l35. .l77, while in the table showing the
per centage of increase in population
from 1870 to 1880, Dakota is credited
with an.lncrease of 853.2 per cent: Ari.
zona 3lS.7: Colorado 1914: Idaho 117.4:
Kansas 1888: Nebraska 1918: Washlne-
ton 2l3.5. No other state or territory
reached 100 per cent, and large
majority of them fell below
fifty. These figures show
clearly. if they show anything at all, that
OF all the commonwealths in the United
States for the decade from 1870 to 1880,
dakota was chosen as O residing place
by over % per cent. of the entire immi.
grafton of the country. The average
per centage of increase for each state and
territory was BIB, or less than tenth of
the increase of Dakota. This is a won.
derful showing indeed, but it is a we'll
known fact that by far the greater in.
crease in Dakota has been since 1880, and
there can be no doubt that the per cent.
age of increase from 1880 to 1884 was
fully as great as it was for the decade pre.
ceding 1880, as the immigration has been
simply wonderful during those three
years, and upon this basis Dakota now
has in round numbers 100000 inhabi.
tants, and when we consider the partici-
patton north Dakota in the conditions
which stimulated this rapid immigration,
1t Is tair to presume that she possesses at
least lSO, 600 of this amount, whlct would
leave south Dakota with 100000 inhabi.
tants, population unequalled except by
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachu
sets, Maryland, South Carolina. Maine.
Wisconsin and West Virginia, at the date
OF entrance into the union as states.
Reasoning from it's presentation of the
case the Republican asserts:
1t is clear, then, that both north and
south Dakota are, upon the qualifica.
ton of population, entitled to division
| ana statehood.
10 this proposition there will not be
dissenting voice. The question now is
will congress give to Dakota that te
which 1t is entitled? Democracy is dis
posed to deny us our rights, purely fo,
political reasons, but it cannot do thit
without violating q we'll established
principle of its party. The Republican
has discovered that the democratic plat
form of 1856 contained the lfollowipa
clause:
Eve recognize the right of the people
in oil the territories, acting
through the legally and fairly expressed
will of majority of actual residents
and whenever the number of their In.
habitants justities it, to form a consti
tlon and be admitted into the
union"
And again. the democratic platform Of
1860 said:
"That when the settlers in territory
having AL adequate population, from q
state constitution, the right of sover.
eighty commences, and being consum.
mated by admission into the union, they
stand on an equal footing with the peo.
pie OF other states; and the state thus
organized ought to be admitted into the
federal union"
Under the principal here enunciated
the south half of Dakota already pos,
sesses sovereign powers, as it has adopted
constitution. This is the proposition
advanced by Judge Campbell aud it is
based upon something stronger in the
way of.precedent than democratic plat.
form, as has been previously shown.