Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1885-10-15
SOUND uTTEaANcE.
An Indefinite Territorial Condition
Preferable to Lasting Alliance
with the North.

An 1n0enn1te Territorial Condition
Preferable to Lasting Alliance
with the North.
Howard Farmer.
We cannot agree with some of our
brother editors in south Dakota. who
are clanoring for admission as whole,
and who would have us believe that it
is the wish of majority of the farming
element that Dakota should be admitted
as whole, in preference to division.
That it Is more of q scheme on the part
of leading politicians and office seekers to
divide the territory, rather than the real
wish and sentiments of the people. We
say we cannot agree with them in this,
We do not and cannot believe it. We
believe that nlne-tenths of the people
living south of 46th parallel, irrespec-
tive OF party politics, are unit in favor
OF dlVlsloD, and We venture to say would
rather remain several years longer
as territory, than be forced into
statehood along with the north half of
the territory. The interests of the two
sections of the territory are of SO vast
difference. We have no large rsilroad
land grants in south Dakota, nor never
can have. Every section of land in
south Dakota is divided into four guar
ter sections with farmer and his fam
lily living on every quarter sectien, or
can and Will be in short time. We
have no large farms here, containing
whole townships, thousands and thou
sads OF acres il one farm, and owned by
some monied king living with his fam
lily IN some Of the eastern states, who
Will overseer, and will, when he wants
to put in and take off his crops, hire
cheap laborers lying around the
eastern cities and ship them out
here to harvest his grain. And he
will buy every dollars worth of pro-
vision he uses on his farm of whosaIe-
sale merchants In st. Paul, Milwaukee
or Chicago. Can anybody tell what
benefit the people or the territo-y de-
rives from snch large farms, except
from direct taxes levied upon them.
There are hundreds of these bonanza
farms, as they are called in north Dakota
while there ls not one in south Dakota.
Here each farmer owns 160 acres of land.
which ls large as any farm ought to be.
Our farmers. farm on smaller scale.
They market their grain here at home,
They buy their provisions here at home.
They patronized our home institutions
~ eSoAJ eAIuR' Lucy Lave tl6lf families
here and they help make up our society.
They attend our churches. They send
their children to our schools, and take
interest in seeing we have good schools
and school laws. In fact south Dako-
ia is community of honest, thrift
ty, industrious farmers, while north
Dakota, what is it? It is q state of
large farm syndicates, composed of east.
eru capitalists and railroad monopoIies.
Does anybody suppose or for one mo-
ment believe, that man can be elected
In north Dakota to the senate, to con-
gress and to the legislature, who ls not
elected directly in the interests of the
capitalist and monopolist. How differ
ent from south Dakota. Here we have
no large land owner, no railroad monopo-
lies, nothing of the kind. Our officers
are elected by the people and in the in
terests of the people. Perhaps they
have not always served the best inter-
ests OF their constituents, but, if thew
hav'nt, it was owing to the influence
brought to bear on them from the north
ern part of the territory. Yes, We say.
cut loose from her, we think to remain a
territory ten years longer is preferable
to being admitted to statehood forever
attached to north Dakota.