The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-29

patriotic States in this Union laid their founda-
tons in violation of congressional enactments.
do not mean merely the foundations Of the
technical State, but of the sub-structures upon
which the feet of civilized men were planted in
their first efforts to implant civilization. Tho
pioneers who pushed our frontiers westward did
their work in spite of congressional enactment.
From 1907 to 184l the law relative to the dis
posal of the public lands tended to repress the
movements of our people towards the West. The
act OF 1907 denounced every man trespasser
who entered upon the public lands prior to Dur
chase In pursuance of the system of sale then in
force, and so continued until 1841. when the pre-
emption law was enacted. Every such trespasser
was liable to removal, fine and Imprisonment
But IN spite of that law our frontier line was car
ried westward. The pioneer built his cabin. i'm
proved the land. Grated the conditions which en-
forced the organization of Territorial govern
ment and evolved States. The men who did
these things were not of revolutionary tenden-
cies. They were not enemies of public order,
nor did they array themselves against the gen.
eral welfare. They made their claims on pub
lie lands from which the letter of the law exclud
ed then They entered upon the territory
of the State of Iowa in 1880. and
were denounced as lawless men by John c. CAL
houn. He said they had seized Iowa. and were
a lawless body of armed men; who were parcel
ling out the whole region, entering into written
stipulations to stand by and protect each other.
over it. Calhoun did not understand their meth
dds nor comprehend their work. He and those
OF his aggressive associates in Congress, by OPP
posing liberalization of our land laws, by in
sisting upon the harsh and repressive statute of
1907, evolved the very conditions which com
PEELED the early settlers of Iowa and other West
ern Territories to institute those protective
regulations and associations by means of which
they stood by and protected each other. and
which he denounced as lawless. In no right
sense were those settlers or their methods law
less. They were conservative in their move
ments. wise in their selection of means. They
were seeking homes, and in orderly ways they
established them; and every home they estab'
llshed was stone laid In the foundation OF the
future State. They had keener perception of
the necessities of the case with which they were
definitely dealing than Congress possessed. The
socalled lawless methods which excited the op-
position and induced the ire of Calhoun took
form In the claims associations which stood as
guardians around and about the homes of the
members, and saved them from the greed and
rapacity of those who had remained in the older
settlements and the States, until the contact of
the pioneers with the wilderness and savagery
made the new regions subdued by them safe
places for the investment of money in lands.
The general rule has been with those VINO
moved our frontier settlements toward the West.
secured governmental recognition and admins
tered the affairs of organized Territories, that
they would not be allowed to move in the matter
OF the organization of State government ex
cept by authority and in pursuance of an en-
abling act passed by Congress. The people of
the Territories observed this general rule when
it was put into action by Congress with justice
and reasonable dispatch. When Congress failed
of it's duty in this regard the people Of neglected
Territories put their own desires into orderly
action, framed and adopted constitutions of
State government disturbed the neglected re-
pose OF the legislative power of the Nation by
Knocking at its door and demanding admission
into the Union. Do we forget how in those
instances Congress bestirred itself, swung open
the doors and invited the importunate Terrific
ries to put on the GARD of statehood and take
their places in the Union? If We forget, turn
ing of the pages of our legislative history will
show US that this was often and invariably done.
Through these doors Michigan and Minnesota,
Iowa. Oregon and other States entered the
Union. No enabling acts of Congress preceded
their organizations of the forms of State govern
ment. They came to Congress, not asking per-
mission to act in the matter of transforming
themselves from Territories to States but, hav-
ing acted in that regard, they demanded recogni-
ton. 1t was always given. Congress did not
say these proceedings were revolutionary. The
people who had moved in them and organized
them were not denounced lawiess and revolu-
tlonary. And SO oft repeated was the fact of
such recognition that it may be said to have be-
come the common law of Congress to so act in
according recognition of rights to the people and
statehood to Territories
LII Lue uayS Wn6u LleSo Things were done the
Democratic party did not plant itself in oppos
ton thereto. On the contrary, it went right on
not only aiding, but leading in the creation of
the line OF presidents to which have referred.
1t was not the custom of that party then to in
sist that the right of petition of the inhabitants
of Territory could be exercised only in pur-
spance of the terms of an enabling act passed by
Congress 1t did not then seem to occur to it
that the constitutional right of the people to as
semble and consult about their interests and
grievances was subject to the limitation that
Congress should first enact law authorizing
them TO do so. On the contrary, many of the
most forceful leaders of that party affirmed that
whenever the population OF Territory equaled
in number the ratio fixed by law as the basis of
representation the right at once attached to or
upon this being done it became the duty of Con-
gress to admit the new State into the Union on
an equal footing with the other States.
If it was good for the Territories of Michi-
gan. Iowa. Minnesota, Oregon and others and
justified their admission into the Union as States
equal with others, is it not good for Dakota
whose petition is now before US! Is there any
peculiar reason to be found in the political con-
ditions of the period to which the cases men
toned belong why the Democratic party af-
frmed and enforced the doctrine / have stated9
Was the doctrine the result of craftsmanship
considerate care for the right of petition, the
public good and the general welfare or
was it convenient expedient and an
lnsincere resort of narrow partisanship
subordinating high and definite
official DUTY to the temporary fortunes and ne
cessities of the Democratic partyl Why shall
the Senate not now accomplish for Dakota
what it did for the other cases I have cited2
Does not Dakota present all of the proper ele
ments involved in the other cases? Indeed, in
every respect the case which Dakota presents to
US is more nearly in harmony with the present
wondrous conditions of this country than was
that of Iowa with those existing at the date of
her admission into the Union. In all Of the ele-
ments essential to statehood Dakota presents a
case which she may safely challenge ALI of the
presidents of the past to match And in the
of her case she has been orderly and
She assumes no revolutionary
attitude. She has set up no authority in hostil-
ity to the government of the United States
Iowa and Minnesota have supplied heavy
percentage of the population of Dakota, and
what those States are in respect of the elements
and conditions which evidence force, progress,
and mower will be repeated in Dakota