Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1886-04-26
BOWEN s K1sasRunY. Prop ts.

/
The Canton Advocate contains a long
article relative to the opposition to the
Hill bill given by the Press and Dako.
taian and the Mitchell Republican. The
Advocate says:
The press of these two cities must ad.
nit that Judge Clifford is in WASHINGTON
iirst last and all the time for south Da-
kota, and that he has all along arrayed
himself on the side of division and ad.
mission. After the Judge has sent out
copies OF this bill with his endorsement
and with the statement that all division
people down that way are putting in
| their best licks for the bill, it is charging
Delegate Clifford with duplicity and
tteachery in charming that northern
emlssaries are interested in securing the
passage of the bill.
The Press and Dakotaian opposed the
Hill measure for the single reason that
it contained clause giving to the north
half of Dakota the power to decide by
its independent vote whether Dakota
should be divided or should not be di.
vided. The Mitchell Republican OPP
posed it for the reason that it located
United States courts in several
| towns other than Mitchell. With the
causes which impelled the antagonism
of the Republican the Press and Da-
kotaian had no sympathy. Our objec.
ton was so the clause which practically
deprived the south half of Dakota OF all
participation in an expression in behalf
of division. That objection is now re.
moved by an amendment to the bill
which provides that division shall occu,
if majority of the voters of all of Da.
kota shall decide in favor of division
In this shape We believe the
bill vii, be acceptable to the
people of Dakota and that its passage
will bring earneat and hearty commen.
dation to Delegate Clifford and M. FL
Day, who are lsboring together to &C
complish its adoption by congress.
The Advocate is disposed to ques
ton this loyalty Of the Press and Dako
taian and the Republican to Delegate
Clifford and in support of this supposi-
tion remarks:
Now then, when the official rep-essss::1;;
tatlve OF tho division movement fosters
and endorses bill that under the most
| favorable circumstances will require
herculean work to carry, and when he
promises that no such hydra-heeded
feature as the endorsement of both
north and south Dakota, singly, shall
be forced upon the people. it does moi
come with good grace from the press ol
his home section to question the efficacy
of the means or the gentleman's loyalty
to the finale.
Tho fact that Delegate Clifford il
supporting the Hill bill now reaches us
through q slow and roundabout channel
His support is evidence that ths
measure in its amended form, is accepta
BILE to his constituents.
We learn, further, that Mr.. Day il
giving in behalf OF the Hill bill his
earnest efforts. Mr.. Days loyalty to
division cannot be questioned and hi,
opposition to the democratic elemen
which seeks to deprive Dakota of it
just rights was long ago established.
The amended Hill bill, as q com
promise between the democrats OF th,
house and the republicans of The senate
appears to be all that We can now ex
pect in the way of legislation for Da
kota, and as such it should receive tht
endorsement Of all divisionists.