Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1885-01-29

s5.
Gratis shont rebellion; use the movement
as proof OF unfitness for self govern
ment and an argument against admis- |
sion? It is likely, however, that the terri
torial legislature, which is now IN ses.
sion. will send memorial to con.
gress, which will, at least, silence the
suggestion that there is any diversity of
opinion between the sections in respect
to division and admission? A census
may also be authorized to show the. alb.
surdity of the insinuation that the pop.
ulstion is insufficient to justify admis-
sion. The people may also smuse them
selves by holding constitutional con.
ventions in the two sections, and franz
ing state constitutions for future nse.
But nothing that they can do will
amount to much if the democrats harden
themselves by party considerations to
| resist Dakota's binding claims"
"How are Dakota's claims binding?
Isn't the whole matter in the discretion
of congress?"
"The government is pledged to incor-
porate the inhabitants of Dakota into
the union, and to admit them to all the
right OF citizens as soon as possible
under the constitution. This pledge is
found in the treaty with France by
which the soil of Dakota was ceded to
the United States. It was viewed by
John Adams as binding and imperative,
and compelled his assent to the admis.
sion of Arkansas as new slave state.
In full reliance upon this pledge the in
habitants of south Dakota have added
wealth and strength to the union by
establishing under national Jurisdiction
q Hourishing and powerful community,
and they now ask that this pledge be
fulfilled.
"Look at this matter from another
point of view. It has been held by the
supreme court that the United States
under the constitution. hold colonies or
any territory outside the states to be
ruled at pleasure; that, however, under
q broad construction of tie power to ad-
NIT new states, territory may be &C.
Iquired, mot fit for admission at the time,
but to be admitted as soon as its popu-
lation and situation entitle it to admls-
sion.' To hold such territory as colony
after its population and situation
entitle it to admission is, therefore, not
only in violation of a national pledge,
but in violation of the constitution"
"Do you claim that Dakota's situation
and population entitle her to admission
as riRht?"
"Yes, I do, in respect to population
there is hardly room for dispute. The
number of persons represented by each
member of the house is about $4,000.
The very lowest figuring cannot bring
south Dakota's population below 25O, 900,
and reasonable estimate places the
number at more than 100000. The
, number of voters, number of school,
; children and the ratio Of these to the
= population of the territory, as shown b,
the census Of 1880. This population il
|, intelligent, industrious, capable of self
, government"
"But may not the population, if sutfi
cient now, decrease? Hasn't the govern
ment gone too fast in admitting new
! stateu? Nevada, for instance"
"There is no similarity between tn
two cases. 1t is practically impossible
b that south Dakota's population shoul,
n decrease. This is not q Nevada, serie
= of mining camps to be deserted with tn
L exhaustion of its mines. Though
D. counts the mineral wealth of the Blac
le Hills among its resources, Dakota
distinctly an agricultural country.
community like that which people
Iowa, upon lands like those of Iowa,
l. forming there. The proposed state-tl
o south half of the territory-has as man
r voters as the entire population of Nevad,
. and the number increases between 8
and 40 per cent every year. With il
wealth of resources in varied agriculture
stock raising and mining, as indicates
II by the census statistics, and by its won
ii derfnl exhibit at New Orleans, sout
y Dakota promises to be one of the mos
productive, populous and hourishing {
the western states."
"Why should the territory be div
ded2"
:. why shouldn't the territory be dev
u ded? Nearly all the western states ha,
> been cut from larger territories, often
\ the same name, with no especial conflit
between the part taken and the part lef
In this case ample area for state is pr,
IN posed, and nine.tenths of the people
re both sections desire separation. TT
,e new state would not arouse jealousi,
NJ by being either too large or too smal
~ 1t is larger than Iowa and not so lars
10 as Nebraska or Minnesota. There hal
IN pen to be reasons which, in this cas-
m make division especially desirable. III
i. inaccessibility of the north and sout
~ settlements of Dakota to each other b,
~ caused many of the public buildings
ou be constructed in duplicate. In case
z separation each section will be equippe
ou The dominant class in the two section
3d. is different. The farms of the propose
e. state are held by numerous small owner
Ut and only few miles of its railroad
Ve have a land grant. North Dakota
q. traversed by the Northern Pacific, vii
g its immense grant, and its lands 81
e. largely held by farmers of vast tract
u. who employ land vote) small armies
ne laborers. But if these distinctions we
Il, fanciful it would make no differenc
's As the people desire separation, and
q sufficient area, with sufficient pop
III lation, will be found within the bound
go ries of the proposed state, the requir
70 ments of the treaty of cession and Of Il
We decisions construlng the constitution q
TO met, and it remains for some one
No. show good reason why the terrific
en- should not be divided
OF "Are there any objections to adm
On sion IN addition to those already 80
lai gested?'
as "There is of course the supposed pal
te advantages. But it is possible thai
TO denial by tile democrats may prove
81 impolitic as it will be unjust. Admissi
ne will not tchange the political complexi
of either the senate or the house. It /
~ been suggested, however, that if adm
NJ sion be postponed, under democratic
mlnistration, and with democratic dis