Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1886-01-02
WANTS oN1 STATE.
Opinion of an Rx.Consreesman q,
tho Dakota Question.

Opinion Of an Ex-Congressman ON
tho Dakota Question.
Ex- Ex-Congressman Lord, now oitissn
Of Dakota, being approached bv the
lNrER-OcEAS reporter on the subject Of
Dakota's division and admission, the
following interview took place:
"What will this congress do about
Dakotaf'
"rhat is very uncertain, for the rea.
son that the case is not considered in
equity and does not rest ou its merits,
but on political exigencies, apd there
fore Of course on false reasoning, which
may lead to unjust CONCLUSIONS
What do you think of divis,. nj"
"Well, that is q question that should
be determined by the apparent or A.
certalned desire Of the people Of the
territory, inasmuch a. there is sufficient
area for two states, each Of which would
be at least as large - the average Of
states already admitted and each part
has complied, or is abundsntly able aud
ready to comply with all the conditions
heretofore required Of territories on ap-
plication for admission"
"Do you think the are. too larxe Tor
one statep
"No. | don't, unless ne~ departure
~ to size OF states Is 10 10 undertaken.
SO far "A past transactions influence The
question, the extent Of area within d.
kots limits cuts no figure in the case.
The size o. states. though much dis,
cussed at the time as TO the original
thirteen, some being much too Isrke
aud others much too small, - alleged
respec lively, yet that WAS not permitted
to control, - to admission 70 the
Union. New York and Pennaylvanis
were each about Ave times - lsrxe -
New Hampshire, six times ~ larae ~
Massachusetts, twenty times ~ lA,Ie q
Delaware, and more than thirty times
NJ large rs Rhode Island; aud OF the
states admitted since the thirteen, Texas
when admitted was more than uix times
the average sizs, and is nearly NJ large
ss Dakotx, New York. Pennsylvania
and all the New England st.t.,s. except
Maine, uut together: and California,
when admitted, wxs larger than
Dakota. II Rhode Island, Delaware
and Connecticut were nut tO small.
and California and Texas were n,t
70" large I" take ard hoI their place.
III the Un'on, then Dakota ~ y whole
territory should not b. 1T 4 disadvantage
on acc"un. Of size, from congressional
ONT OF view, and certainly not in tho
estimation Of her own peuple.
"ro return to your question 40 to di.
vision: Tho inquiry, M presented BY
current events, has several phases, and
II IN sk,n v>n,.s.1~, .,f ~.
tory, it might b. u,tfele emily answered,
according I" the scope Of it ~ under.
stood. II the proposition wore 10 divide
by IN east and west line, and the two
parts be admitted to the Union 1t tho
same time, and by this congress, an
answer could be given to that question.
and !, as one OF the people, should VOC
aye. II the proposition were to divide
in that way for the sake of letting into
the Union the south half by this con.
gress, while the north half should be
compelled To stay out indefinitely.
though it has all the qualifications
heretofore required Of territories for
admission, an answer could he gwen by
the people to that, and it might be .
different one. should vote no.
III It shall appear, ~ think il
will, that the present congress- will
decline 10 divide the territory at
all. and irrespective OF the aues.
ton as To whether one or both parts
should be admitted, but manifest = dis
position 10 admit the territory now as =
whole. then the proposition would be:
Shall Dakota seek admission q whole,
or stay out Of the Union indefinitely,
with the hope Of ultimate division
whenever the equilibrium Of the United
States senate shall not be thereby dis
turbed, and the division to be accom-
panied by the admission of one part
and followed by that OF the other some
years after; then an answer to thxt
shape Of the question might also be given;
and 10 far HI my humble voice goes, but
one among 80 many, it would be do
cidedly for admission by this congress,
and as one grand state