St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-10
SENSIBLE SENTIMENTS.
a Prominent Citizen of Dakota Expresses
Himself as Favorable to Admis-
sion as a Whole.
Hs Says Nobody Wants Division Except
Politicians Who Want to Feather
Their Nests.
Dakota to Further Their Mer-
cenary Schemes.
A Suggestion That Dakota be Made a
&S9at Balance For New York
and Texas.
For Admission rs a whole.


Special 10 the Globe.
WASHINGTON, May "a citizen OF
Dakota who is prominent as politician
and business man but not an ofilceholder,
has written a letter to a member OF the
house committee on territories, i'll which he
gives a glimpse of affairs from the inside,
and his opinions in regard to certain phases
of the Dakota question now before con-
gress. He SAYS the state of New York will
dictate to the American people who shall be
president of the United States
Her representation in congress is
much larger than that of any other state
and she practically controls the wealth and
power of the Eastern states. and there is
jealousy and dissatisfaction on account of
her controlling influence in all national
affairs. The great state of Texas will
eventually weld the influence of the South
and Southwest, and the writer thinks it
would be wise policy in congress to foster
the great state of Dakota in the Northwest
as kind of balance or offset to New York
and Texas. Dakota, he says. ought to be
admitted into the Union without division of
her territory. and the energies of her people
will. if properly applied to the develop
ment of
HER GREAT RESOURCES
and diversified smterests, make her the
empire state of the Northwest. We are
favored, he says, with the finest agricul-
tural country in the union, the best stock
and cattle country, the most nutritious
grasses in the world, where stock Craze and
range the year around and the largest mills
and richest mines on earth, and twenty
years hence we will have the same repre-
sentaton, the same influence that New
York has to-day in national affairs. The
admission of Dakota. undivided.
Is opposed only by politicians and
office seekers who wish to have
large representation in the United States
senate and the offices of the two states to
parcel among themselves. Every division
list is an office-seeker and every office-seeker
is divisionist, with the exception of a few
Democrats who have been picking the
plumS under former administrations through
their connection and business relations with
the officials The Democratic party and
the conservative elementrof the Republican
party in Dakota are opposed to division
of the territory upon any line. Every
one of
THE COTERIE
of would-be state officers, with one or two
exceptions, came to Dakota with a commits
sion in his pocket. Other officeholders left
the territory as soon as their commissions
expired. while those left in Office expect to
be ousted and would welcome any change
that might give them a new foothold. The
coterie of so-called state officers own less
property and pay less taxes than the same
number of men in any occupation in any
state or territory in the Union. A
division of Dakota would give
rise to much trouble. The schem-
hn hor fI,air
nefarious games around Yankton and the
Douglas county bond schemes would run
the affairs of South Dakota to the detri-
ment of the rest of the territory. In an
ticipation of admission they have already
scattered their strikers over South Dakota,
and laid their plans to rule or ruin. If the
whole territory should be amitted the field
would be too large for the success of their
schemes, and the influence of each of the
three sections of the state would have a
wholesome effect upon the general welfare.