The Warner sun. (Warner, Brown Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1885-1???, 1888-04-13
CONGRESSIONAL.

April S'-lH INC sthdCt
the bill authorizing the sale to aliens Of
certain mineral lands was taken up fOl
consideration and Mr.. Faulkner, a mem,
Der of the committee on mines and min
ing, from which the bill had been report
ed, spoke in opposition to it. He regard,
ed 1t, ne said, as a bill fraught with dan
ger to the country.
Mr.. Stewart said that there seemed to
be a total misrepresentation Of the obiec
of the bill, 1t left the law so far as the
mining claims were concerned in the
same condition as if the act Of 1897 had
not passed.
The discussion having closed the ques-
ton was taken on the amendment offered
by Mr.. Faulkner and the vote was an
~nOun2ed-yeas 20, nays II. No quorum
hanng voted the roll was called and for
", six senator's answered to their names.
Without any further vote on the bill or
amendment the bill was laid aside and
the unfinished business was taken mp, be
ing the bill to provide for the admission
OF Dakota into the union and for the or
ganizatiou Of the territory Of Lincoln,
The substitute reported from the com
mittee on territories to the original bill
establishes the boundarie, Of the proposed
state and designates the remaining por-
ton of the present territory us the ter
ritory of North Dakota, mot Iincoln)
with Bismarck as the capItal.
Mr.. Plat. chairman Of thn committee
on territories, said that the bill was one Of
four which had been reported by the
committee on territories for the admission
of the southern part Of Dakota under a
constitution already formed. The other
three bills were enabling acts for the ter
ritories of Washington, Montana and the
northern portion Of Dakota. A sugges-
tion, he said, had been made against the
use Of the names of North and
South Dakota, but the conditions were
such that the name OF Dakota should not
be taken away from the northern portion
of the territory without injustice and with
out doing violence to the feeling and
wishes Of, no believed, every inhabitant
in the territory. To give some other name
than Dakota to either portion Of the terri
tory would be something like the authOri-
ties of a town going into a family and in
sistiug ON giving to its members other
names than those they had received from
their parents. 1t would be as unjust as %
attempt TO change the name of North
Carolina or South Carolina. The propos-
ed state of South Dakota had a popula-
ton Of 100000 and he thought they had a
right 10 be admitted as a state in time to
participate Ia the mex presidential cleo
ton.
Mr.. Yest-DO you mean that the peo-
pie Of South Dakota have a legal aud con
stitutional right TO come into the union as
a state without action on the part of con
gress?
Mr.. Platt-No.
Dir. Vest-That claim has been asserted
and ] wanted 70 know whether the sena-
tor from Connecticut endorsed the propo-
sition or not.
Mr. Platt-I do not claim that the peo-
pie Of Dakota can set up a state govern
ment for themselves Independent Of the
action OF congress, but I do claim that
they have a right to form a constitution
and that congress has no right to deny
their admission.
Speaking Of the division of the present
territory he said that so strongly con-
vinced was he that the territory ought to
be divided that he would be in favor of it
even if the people Of the territory were
against il. The present territory was too
w. for II state. AS to the suggestion
ade at the last session, that the cutting
~ territories into numerous states would
convert the senate into d mob, he replied
thar it was better that the senate should
BE- 50 enlarged as to represent the popular
Will and To feel the popular pulse than
that the state should be admitted SO large
as to have an abnormallY large represent
iation In the house OF representatives.
There were now in the union nine states
h~avingIes9 population than the proposed
state OF South Dakota. He argued that
South Dakota had brought herself within
the precedents under which states had
been admitted. II could not be said Tat
she Ind done anything irregular. Why
should she not be- admitted aud admitted
nowY Why should her PRAYER be longer
deniedy Why should the senate turn a
deaf ear to her prayer? Why should the
semitic refuse 70 participate ia that most
gFapdest act Of iegislation-the admission
I new states into the union-thus aiding
81 Tie grandeur, the strength and the
Glory and the renown OF the American re-
publicly
Mr. Butler obtained the floor ana the
nal went over till tomorrow.
Adjourned.
WASHINGTON. April I0.-Mr plumh n I
PRESENTING the petition ID favor Of the bill
Y preserve the Yellowstone park, said