Bismarck weekly tribune., 1886-02-05
A WEAK ARGUMENT.

A WEAK ARGUMENT.
II there ever were any arguments
against the division of Dakota, or against
the Sioux Falls convention scheme, or it's
manner of accomplishing division and
statehood for the southern half, they do
not seem to have been promulgated at
Washington any committee, in
any newspaper, or in the senate chamber.
It was expected of Senator Vest that he
would make some sort of telling opposi-
ton to the division movement, but he
only succeeded in blocking all business
of the United States senate for one whole
afternoon and making the poorest excuse
of an argument that has yet been at
tempted. He brings out the published
utterances of some obscure and wholly ir-
responsible South Dakota editor to show
that the people of Dakota are wholly un-
fit for self government. It is, of course,
deplorable that there exists in Dakota
men guilty of such foolish ideas as ex-
pressed in the newspaper read by Mr..
Vest in the senate, but the Dakota ques-
ton is worthy of more Ggnifed discus
sion and consideration. Messrs. Moody
and Edgerton presented their side of the
case in a mastery manner, and while
their argument contained many misstate-
ments, they we're 80 adroitly interviewer
with dry and prosy statistics as to be al
most perfectly obscured. The emphatic
denial of there being any pre-
cedent whatever for the assumption
of one half of a territory to
speak for the whole would have been an
anti-Harrison argument; the fact that
100000 people were not allowed voice
in the convention that formed the consti-
tuition would have been an argument
against the scheme; the fact that the
central porion of the territory opposes
division on the 18th parallel, because it
divides counties and towns, and even
farms, would have been telling argu-
ment; the fact that the people of the CEN
tral region believe that division would
change the railroad systems of Dakota
and tend to retard the building of roads
north and south and the consequent de-
velopment of Central Dakota, would have
been good argument; the belief that one
state government with one set of officers
would not be so burdensome on the tax
payers as two states with two sets of Of
ticials, would have been an argument;
the fact that if not divided Dakota
would be the empire state of the
northwest, with more power in the
lower house of congress - where it
it would do the most good for western
people-than any other western state,
would have been a good argument; the
pride of the people in living in state
ha7ing great power because of large
representation in national conventions,
would have been an argument; the di-
versifed Industries of the state, insuring
unquestioned credit and financial and
commercial standing unequalled in any
other state in the Union, would have been
an argument; the fact that intelligent
people in the territory differ in their
views and desires regarding the division
movement, that only the politicians thus
far have been heard, and now the people
want a voice, would have been an argu-
ment; that question OF SO great impor-
tance as the division of territory, peo-
pied from one end to the other, ought not
to be arbitrarily settled by
few counties, would have been an
argument; the fact that the scheming pol.
iticians who engineered the bill through
the territorial legislature providing
for constitutional convention of only
one-half Of the territory, stated at the
time that they dare not leave the question
to the people Of the territory. In other
words, "the people be id" would have
been an excellent argument; the fact that
the passage of the bill was class legisla-
ton and ought to have been vetoed by the
executive, would have been an argument;
that the whole business from beginning
to end was irregular, illegal and without
precedent, would have been an argu-
ment; in short, there are hundreds Of ar
guments that might have been presented
against the Sioux Falls scheme, without
bringing out the utterances of pustulous
editor and holding them up to congress