The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1886-07-30

GEOGRAPHICAL AND POLITICAL REA-
for division, and all in all makes one of
the strongest showings on the question
ever presented.
Notice again this comment on the
governors message to the same legisla-
ture from the Bismarck Tribune,
representative north Dakota paper:
The question of division and admis-
sion is discussed at length in spirit
of fairness and in consonance with
the prevailing sentiment throughout
the territory.
And again, from the same paper,
January Is, 1885:
| The Bismarck correspondent of the
Jamestown Capital assumes little too
much when he charges that any paper
is advocating admission as whole.
The people and the press of this city
are in favor of division of the terrific
ry, and they are squarely and honestly
in favor of it.
Once more in the same columns,
March 3, referring to the south Dakota
members of the legislature:
They want separation and statehood
for south Dakota, and we ought to do
all in our power to help them.
Do these things go to prove that
north Dakota had no chance to ex-
press herself on this important ques-
ton?
! have tried to find all the arguments
in favor of admission as whole
that have been put forth, and the prin-
cipal one seems to be that Dakota
would make "a glorious empire state, .
should she go into the union as she
stands to-day.
| Does mere acreage constitute an in
huential state? Then Texas, with her
265, 900 square miles and her eleven
members Of congress ought to out
weigh New York with her $4,000
square miles and her thirty-four mem
bers of congress, or Pennsylvania, with
her $4,000 square miles and her twenty
eight members in the councils of the
nation. Then California, with her 1885,
600 square miles and her six represent,
atives, ought to make little Ohio with
!. her Al, 1000 square miles and her twenty
!, one representatives kick the beam. o.
Nevada, with her 10000 square mile.
t and her lone congressman, ought t.
; knock out little Rhody, with her 1881
l square miles and her two members O
: the lower house, in one round.
: Such comparisons, which might b
}, continued through the entire list o
q states, clearly prove the absurdity o
a this argument.
e THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED STAT.
is about $4,000 square miles, and it
: population is nearly 265,OO0. The are
of Colorado is 100000 square miles, bu
: she will never have the density of sci
- Element that south Dakota has. Mex
T. to her comes Oregon, with 5000, NJ
Il braska, Kansas and Minnesota wit
10000. $4,000 and $4,000 square mile
respectively, while the average OF all tn
n rest, leaving out the half dozen pocke
II boroughs in the east and south, is b.
J. low $4,000 square miles. Does anyon
IS hear of Iowa being walked over in
} national convention. or Michigan, {
le Wisconsin, or Indiana?
Again, it may be argued that it
Il, cheaper to run one large state tina
le two small ones. This is not ia
'e proposition, for good government an
l. economical management are not
is question of square miles. Yet l wi
IS consider it. California, with l5S,O(
TO area, has state tax of 45 cents on $50
n; Minnesota and Iowa, where the cond
1T tions are largely the same as in Dakot
ot pay 13 cents and 25 cents respectivel
T. and Michigan pays but II cents. Or
ot gon, with $4,000 area, is taxed IS cen
d. on the 500, while New York, mo
IL than half as large, pays but a fractic
s. over 20 cents. Yet do not claim f
lg these figures anything except that tn
lg utterly upset the "big state" theor
and leave the field clear to consider Il
division question on its merits. II
ed density of population and the futu
POSSIBILITIES OF GROWTH
as must be taken into account. At pr