Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1886-06-12
The MINORITY REPORT.

| views of Hon. William ID. Hill. Qi
| Ohio. era the Rights of the People i'll
the TerrItories-lA Report in Behail
OF His Eli for the Division of Da-
| aiSota.
The undersigned cannot fully agree
with all statements contained IN the ma.
iorlty report of the committee on the
territories on senate bill No. 967, 'pro-
viding for the admission OF the state
of Dakota into the union, and for the
organization of the territory of Lincoln"
+ Nor can the undersigned give his con-
sent to favorable report on house bill
No. S120, providing for the admission of
Dakota as whole into the union, and
hereby gives his reasons for his dissent
therefrom.
+ The undersigned agrees with the ma
lority that Dakota should not be admit
ted under senate bill No. 967, because
all of the people of the territory were
not consulted fairly On the question of
division, and in the formation of con-
stitution for the proposed state of OAK
ota under said senate bill. do not re-
capitulate the statements contained in
the majority report as to population, re-
sources, and the veto of portion of the
people of said territory, nor the law es
stated by the majority on that subject. /
chnnot agree With the conclusion reached
by the majority in their Interpretation of
section of article of the constitution,
which is as follows:
New states may be admitted by the
congress into this union, but no nav
state shall be formed or erected within
the Jurisdiction of any other state, nor
any state bs formed by the junction of
two or more states or parts OF states
without the consent of the Legislatures
OF the states concerned as we'll AS of the
congress.
AS applied to the division oil state
already in the union, the construction
of this provision of the constitution by
the majority is undoubtly correct, but
as applied to the division of q territory [
claim this provision of the constitution
has no APPLICATION at all. On the other
hand, | believe that congress
hes the undoubted power
to divide large territory into two ter
ritories, or to consent, by proper legisla-
tion, to division thereof by the people
vino are qualified Slectors therein.
AS stated by the majority, Dakota has
l49,000 square miles, and by the census
OF 1885 population Of 415,000, probably
now 100000. The fact that Texas has
o large number of square miles, and has
not divided, is no reason. in the opinion
of the undersigned, why Dakota should
not be divided. 1t is a fact presumably
known by every member of congress
that the admission. or rather the annex
alton, of Texas to the federal union is
without precedent in our national his
tory. That before Texas consented to
become state of our union she reserved
the right to her people, by solemn tieaty
stipulations, to divide her territory into
five states without the consent Of con.
gress, and that those treaty obligations
make higher law than any act OF con-
grsss.
The fact that the people of Texas
have not seen fit to SO divide their terri
tory does not alter the paramount fact
that the government of the United
States, through its chosen and constitu-
tionally appointed representatives, con-
ceded to the people of Texas the abso-
lutte right to do 80. Nor can the under
signed see the force of the argument of
the majority, that Montana, New Mexi-
co, Arizona and Wyoming have q larger
number OF square miles than the two
sections of Dakota would have if the
territory WAS equally divided. This
congress knows, and the people of the
country know, that nearly every acre
of the territory of Dakota il susceptible
of high state of cultivation, and that
the soil and climate of that territory
make 1t capable of sustaining as dense
population as any of our western
states. Though open to settlement but
few short years, it is conceded by the
majority that the population of Dakota
already exceeds sight states of the
union and four of the original 'birtesn
states. 1t now has q large number of
presidential post offices and larger
revenue therefrom than any other terri
tory, though younger in its organization,
and larger than eleven of tho states of
the union. The undersigned caunot
agree that the number of square miles
OF any territory could constitute q state.
Five hundred millions of square miles
of sterile rocks and mountain canens,
such as composed large part of Ne
vada, Arizona and Colorado, meE toned
by the majority, would never make d
state. More wheat can be grown in one
county in Dakota than in 100000 square
miles of country like Pixies Peak.
The undersigned is under tho impress
sion that it requires large number of in.
telligent people, with bone, muscle
mind, and patriotism, wita proper ia.
| cillties for development, to constitute O
state. All of these each section of Da.
kota already has or soop would have
more than any other territory as .
whole. more than any of the New Eng.
| land states, than any state on the AT.
lantic sea board except New York and
Pennsylvania, and equal to any of the
middle, western, or southern states.
As to the representation in congress
in the event of division of the territory
ofiDakota. it will have to be conceded
! that il will make no difference as tt
numbers and power in the house of rep
eentatives. There would, it is true, al
some time in the future, be two addi.
tional United States senator's from 6
great western state, who would repre-
sent before the year 1900 more square
miles of territory, more people and
| more wealth and as much intelligence
as five of the New England states ant
| the state of Delaware combined.
/ The six New England States, New
Jersey, Delaware and Maryland are nov
represented by eighteen members in tn,
United States senate, and outvote il
that body eighteen other senators of tn
nino largest states who represent Que
half the population of the entire union
While finding 40 fault with the balanc
of power given to the small states of th
original thirteen In the senate, but firm