Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1885-10-21

WNi. H. EDMUNDS.
The Ashton Herald and Bee complaine
that the forty.sixth parallel of north
latitude does not constitute the natural
boundary of state, hence there is DO
reason why it should be made bound.
ary. We desire to have the Bee inform
its readers what natural boundary sep.
arates Kansas from Nebraska; Nebraska
from Dakota, Missouri from Iowa and
Iowa from Minnesota. In fact take
the whole system of states and territor.
les and it will be seen that the boundary
lines on the north and south are not de-
fined by rivers or mountain ranges and
in many cases they cut between the
parallels of latitude. The reason
why the forty-slxth parallel was chosen
is because it equally divides the present
territory and permits of the formation of
two states with an area equal to the
largest of the states who are neighbers-
itgives two we'll formed and symmetrical
ly proportioned areas that complete the
column resting upon Texas and the In
dian territory. 1t gives an area to each
vast enough to support ten million of
people, embracing all the varied re-
sources which combine IN giving to q
state population that will represent all
the great industries of the world. Each
is large enough for the economical ad
ministration of government, and both
will be stronger, more prosperous
and the population happier by being
politically separated. That portion OF
the Dakota press which oppose division
use no argument to sustain their posi-
ton. Thsy support their opposition by
an assumption that division is asked for
by political schemers-or politicians
seeking office-not by the people. And
this is not true. The division project is
as old as the territorial organization it.
self, and while it may be favored by am
bilious men, 1t is not projact suggest
ed by those who are figuring prominent.
ly op the stage to-day. These men
found the people preparing for it when
they first set foot on Dakota soil. It
was never questioned seriously until the
capital commission fraud placed the ter
ritorial capital at Bismarck, when the, in.
terest of fraction of the north seemed
to be best promoted by an undivided
territory. 1t is not division that has
been worked up by the cabal of schemers
who are now robbipg the territory, but
it is the new born anti-division senti-
ment, that sees in the present helpless
condition of the people opportunities
for personal gain that will be cut off
when the unwieldy mass is divided and
the protection of state government
thrown around the peoples interests
and the public treasure.
So for as the dismemberment of Da-
kota is concerned it was promised when
the territory was first organized, and
since that date-March I'd, 1S6l-Da.
kota has been divided. Montana wse
taken from Dakota IN 1868, and several
years later the territory of Wyoming
was cut off. It is undoubtedly the
policy Of the best statesmen-the patri.
OTIS of the land-to.day, to divide Dako.
ia. 1t will be better for the unicn tc
have two Dakotas. The balances oi
power will be better preserved, and
statesmen who take patriotic view Of
the question will 80 decide. The demo.
cratic party has no policy opposed to
the division of Dakota, and 1t is more
than probable that it will favor divi
sion when the question is fairly present
ed. Separated from it's effect upon the
ambitions of young and enterprisine
cities that are looking to local advan.
tage, and separated also from the greed
of few influential men and moneyed
corporations, the question of division
for Dakota is affirmstiveIy answered by
every interest where the welfare of the
people of the territory and of the great
majority of the United States, il
affected. It is not sectional question
it is national one, and the natien viii
demand division.