The National tribune., 1886-02-11
THE 49TB CONGRESS,
The Senate Passes the Dakota Bill.
Gen. LOgan'S Speech.
ADMISSION OF DAKOTA.


Iican Senators advocating and Democrats OPP
posing the bill. One of the ablest arguments
in favor of the measure was made by Senator
Logan. His remarks were chiefly in answer
to speeches by Mr.. Butler, Of South Carolina,
and Mr.. Vest, of Missouri, both of whom had
asSaiied the bill. Gen. Logan said:
/ would ask the Senator from South Carolina
whether he objects to the size Of this great Terri
tory. As has been stated by the Senator from
Indiana Mr. Harrison in his admirable presenta-
ton of this case, both by report and in argument.
this division of Dakota Territory that now asks
admission into the Union State has IN area
1900 square miles. 1t has twice the area of lndi-
ana and is 20 600 square miles larger than the state
of Illinois: 90 GOO square miles larger than Arllan-
sas: 5000 square miles larger than Missouri more
than two and a half times as large as south Caro-
lima and from this State not nearly half so large,
Dakota finds her greatest and strongest opposition
a State whose statesmen have led in the line they
have been on whether correct or incorrect, always
in the advance; perhaps right sometimes. but
wrong more times than right, and who now lead
their political friends in opposition TO this immense
and grand Territory being admitted rs State INTO
this Union. Dakota is 10000 square miles larger
than all the six New England States together. One
of the States of this Union has presented to the
Nation regarded as statesmen, and to-day has
given of her citizens TO this Government to
manage the affairs of state. In this Territory
is more than so times as large as that State. VIII
the representatives from this State object? Surely,
surely, Mr.. President, the State of Delaware VIII
not object to her big sister. Certainly there then
can be objection for want OF length and breadth
in the size of Dakota
What next can be the objection? Can 1t be on
account of its population, with over quarter OF a
million of people, with greater population to-day
than any State with the exception OF three had
when admitted new States into the Union?
Then take ii for granted the objection cannot go
TO the population.
Well can it go 10 the character of the population :?
They energetic people; they are hardy pioneers
they are intelligent people; they cultivate the soil (;
they have btIiided churches; civilized and
Christianizcd people. Your objection, then, GER
tainly cannot go to the character of her population
Ina far nj as "
my friend from Indiana amounted to 100000 III
1881 the number of schools, f,53i; school houses
1910; amount expended for schools i'll 1885, 81 ,2O0
CO., will say not by way OF criticising the action
of States, but merely by of calling attention to
the arguments made by Senators, that were 1 so
inclined could name you a number o! states now
having their interests represented this floor by
able men that We're in existence States almost q
lfcentury before they had the number of schools
and school houses that there now i'll the Terri
tory of Dakota and some of the States represented
by Senators who are I'm opposition to this bill
within n very few years have not had the number
of schools and SchoOl-houses expended the
amount of money for the education of the children
of their States that has been expended in the Ter
rory of Dakota for the education OF the children
of that Territory and yet it Is not TO be admitted
as a sister State in this Union! But surely, sir not
on this ground will it be excluded.
Well, sir. are there other reasons? 1t cannot he
objected that her Constitution is not republican
form. have read it carefully and think it a bet
ter Constitution than of the States have which
have been in the Union for many, many years.
To these objections answer has been fully made.
But Sir, the real ODlectsOn--wnat can be An
sir that objection is surrounded and covered up in
such way that it does not fully make its appear
ance to the Senate; it lies underneath the surface,
only occasionally raising its head that it may be
seen Perhaps by reading paragraph from the
speech of the Senator from South Carolina may
get glimpse at it its shadow at least appears.
If understand the meaning of the Senator
from South Carolina, and think the language is
plain enough to be understood he means that he is
opposed to the admission of Dakota for the reason
that If it comes in now it will have representatives
i'll the Congress OF the United States of different
political compile xon from the Administration. "
1t will not do for Senators here to throttle this
young State and put their opposition to its a;mis-
sion on the technical grounds they have. The true
ground is that it is Republican and is not Demo-
cratic and why not say so? 1t has every element
of State in all respects except recognition. And
after ii States have been admitted into the Union
without an enabling act-nearly half the new States
that have been admitted into the Unon-when this
18th comes it will not do for Senators to say
that there must be enabling act i'll order that the
law may be complied with Why, sir there is no
such law the statute books there is no such
provision in the Constitution there has been no
such principle laid down by statesmen either here
elsewhere, which has been settled by Congress,
that it is necessary that State should have
abling act prior to her admission into the
1 was very sorry to hear the Senator from
Missouri say what he did in reference our former
troubles. certainly should not have alluded to it
in any way in the arguments that L should make
on this question II 1t had not been for the
unnecessary remarks made by the Senator from
Missouri. He attributed an alusion to the soldiers
to the Senators from Iowa Mr. Wisonl and Indi-
ana Mr. Harrison but in reading the speech of
the Senator from Iowa do not find it. However,
in the speech of the Senator from Indiana he al
uded to the fact merely that portion of the popu-
lation of Dakota was made up of Union soldiers
who had helped preserve the Union. The retort in
reply to that by the Senator from Missouri of
very severe character, and to that L have only TO
reply, that l should not have mentioned the fact
that the soldiers" had largely settled this Terri
tory. it is inmaterial what the population is
whether soldiers or other citizens so it il good hon
est and true No matter whether soldiers or what,
1T is the number and character that inquire into
But sir, l wish now TO know if in the Congress of
the United States to mention the fact that SOL
diers have settled in a certain locality is to
be considered ofense? Is the fact spoken
that any portion of people were patriots
and fought to preserve the Union, to offend or in
suit any man class OF men in this country? Sir
why should it? If the Senator from Indiana had
said Confederate soldier and Union soldier and
citizen it would have all been the same to me- So
far the recognition of this State is concerned
1t Is immaterial who they are, they are good
citizens but the mere mention of soldiers brought
out structure from the Senator from Missouri in
which he remarks that these things have been
thrown out heretofore for the purpose of arousing
the feelings of a certain class of people Sir am
sorry that any mar should suspect for q moment
that the mere mention of this fact would arouse any
man TO say that which might well be LETT unsaid on
q question of this kind.
Mr.. President, desire TO say in reference TO the
people OF Dakota without speaking of them in any
other sense than that of citizens ofthe United states
that many OF them went from the State of Illinois
from near where reside. Many OF them were my
ncghbors and friends. knew one little County
just northwest from Chicago from which 800 people
went to the Territory of Dakota III year all in
telIiScnt, energetic, and honest people; and sir
may not appeal to this great country to its mag
nanmty, and the justice that it ought To- mete out
Ia those people that they he permitted to exercise
the same rights that are guaranteed and given 20
States that have been admitted into the Union on
the same theory and basis that this Territory now
applies for admission rs new State?
heard gentleman say the other day that they
were already represented. That is n mistake 4
Territory is represented nowhere. They have n
mere agent who hangs around the outskirts of the
House without a vote; there, perhaps to watch for
some little measure beneficial TO his Territory lie
has no rights a Representative. They the peopie
of Ie Territories outside of the pale of repre-
scntatlou and you deny them the right your fathers
were denied by England. When they are ready to
become n State and have representation lawfully
you say no. True we viii tax you. but will DENY
you the right OF representation. You desire a Quar-
ter of million of people TO stay out of doors as il
were, and tax them and represent them without
their consent. You furnish them officers whom
they do not choose. you deny them the rights that
you yourselves enjoy. Why Because the powers
that be afraid that their political ideas are not
i'll harmony with Democracy; il will prevent ia
having Democratic Governor, Secretary of State
and Judges to mold public opinion. All sir there
Is the rub"
Eleven States have come in in the same manner
but that makes difference. You will go back
on the prccedents OF your own party and Congress
You will set at naught the rule that has been laid
down for the admission OF many States. You Will
deny the citizen the right that you claim for your
selves, and why? Forsooth. Mr. President the
Democracy must have the Offices for the benefit of
the party.
All, Mr. President hide it as you may draw the
vail over 1t as you may, the gauZe manufactured
by the opposition Is faulty in lis warp and wool
that 1t is easily through and discovered that