Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1885-10-22

l
tion framed at Sioux Falls, that all ma,
have an opportunity Of reading it. 1t i
q strong document, and we only regre
that 1t was not framed in CONVENTION
OF the whole of Dakota, that it nigh
have better prospect of becoming th'
fundamental law of new state. Beyond
doubt the constitution will be endorsed
by majority of all votes that will bt
polled, but we do not believe that either
division or admission will thereby bt
fastened. Black Hills Journal.
cit IS an act of shrewdness on the par,
of Mr.. Pettlgrew to withdraw and there.
fore have nothing to do with the consti.
tutienal convention further than the
work of last winter which secured 1t fo1
our city and replemlshed the excheQuer
of our landlords" 1t is not in keeping
with Mr.. Pettigrew's character to chase q
phantom which the Offices bestowed BY
the coming convention will probably
prove. 1t will be remembered that Mr..
Pettigrew while member of the consti-
tutional convention Of two years ago
ridlculed the proposition to elect state
officers without authority from congress.
Sioux Falls Argus.
An associated press dispatch from
Mitchell, of date the 18th met, says the
democratic central committee held an all
night secret session last hight IN this city,
and formulated an address to the demo-
Gratis, advising that they take no action
regarding the constitution recently
framed for South Dakota, and to refuse
to participate in the election called to
! adopt the same and elect state officers.
They denounce the constitutional move
ment as unjust to North Dakota, who
| were given no voice IN the matter. 1t
also appointed an executive committee of
members from each judicial district, of
which Hen. y. NJ. lnman was elected
chairman.
The Press has frequently seen it stated
in the few newspapers in South Dakota
which are opposed to the division of the
territory that the people in the towns,
where the politicians live, are favorable
to division, and that the farmers who pay
the great burden of taxes were largely
opposed to it. We have several times
stated that this was a false position. Ac-
quaintance with the farmers, talks with
people who are well-informed, reading
OF newspapers, and observations general
ly all along have convinced US to a GER
tainty that the great mass of the people
farmers as we'll as all others, want to see
this great territory cut in twain.-Sioux
Falls Press. III
We cannot agree with some Of bur
brother editors in South Dakota, who are
clamoring for admission as whole, and
who would have us believe that 1t IS the
wish of a majority of the farming element
that Dakota should be admitted as q
whole, in preference to division. That it
is more of 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 nine -tenths of the people living
south of 46th parallel, irrespective of
party politics, are unit IN favor of diyi-
sion, 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 terrltory.-Howard
Farmer. ....
What are the facts about this constltu
tionsl convention scheme' A legislature
was chosen by the people of Dakota.
What fort To provide means for the con.
tlnuation of the territorial government;
to alter, repeal or enact new laws within
constitutional or prescribed limits. Who
for? For all the people of Dakota; not
for part of them; not for North, South
or Central Dakota. There was no au-
thority anywhere for that legislature to
legislate for the few. What did 1t do?
It went outside of all law and precedent
and voted that convention composed Of
delegates from certain counties, to wit:
All those counties south of the 46th par
sllel, should elect delegates to conven-
ton for the purpose of framing consti-
tuition for that portion of the territory,
with the view of division and the organi-
| zatlon Of state. Who asked that Iegis
| lature to pass such an act? Did the peo-
pie of Dakota ask it? No; nobody asked
it, not single petition was ever sent
them from any section of the territory, so
far as we can learn, to pass the act, nor
any petition whatever looking for divl-
sion of this territory. The act was wholly
extra legislative, and of no binding force.
1t was not law. Not dollar spent under
the act Is lawfully and legally spent. 1t
| is . fraud upon the people to spend it.
If the people of Dakota desired division
Of the territory and q constitutional con-
vention, it belonged to the people to mi
tiate the proceedings; or it might have
originated with the legislature, but only
as q preliminary proceeding.-Bangor
| Rustler.
The Scphlstry Of Hugh J. Campbell
| shown up.
The Bangor Rustler, of Walworth
| county, makes the following scathing
review Of Hon. Hugh J. Campbell's ad-
dress to the people of South Dakota in