St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-12-11
cox AND THE DAKoTAs.

There is no uncertainty as to how
lion. s. S. Cox stands on the question
OF dividing and admitting Dakota. He
says that, as a Democrat and legis-
lator, he favors the admission Of South
Dakota by Democratic house, eXclu-
sive of any political consideration, be-
cause it is right inherently, and that he
is also in favor of passing an enabling
act for North Dakota. Neither is Mr..
Cox new convert to this idea. AS a
member of the committee on territories
last session. he strenuously opposed the
SPRINGER omnibus bill on the ground
that Dakota had higher claims than the
other territories, and the question OF
its admission ought to be consid-
cred separately. In a lengthy in
tervlew in last Fridays World MIR.
Cox reviews the history of territorial
admissions, and in doing so presents a
strong argument in favor of admitting
Dakota as two states. Mr.. Cox was a
member of congress when Minnesota,
Oregon, Kansas. West Virginia, Ne
vada and Colorado were admitted as
states. and as he actively participated in
the discussions which arose on the
question of admitting those states, he
is familiar with all the principles that
apply to territorial admission. lie is
now, as he has ever been. believer III
the doctrine of popular sovereignty. A
disciple of STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, and
having received his political inStruc-
ton while sitting at the feet of this
Gamaliel of Democracy, it is but nat
ural that MI Cox should advocate the
doctrine that the will of the people OF
the territories should prevail for their
own government when they advanced
beyond territorial homage.
The array of statistical matter which
Mr.. Cox presents in support of his
argument for the division and admis-
sion of Dakota is familiar to our North
western people, who know the true
sources. He recalls the fact that Da-
kota would long ago have been adj
mitted if it had not been for an obstruc-
zion thrown in it's way by EUGENE
HALE, of Maine, who held grudge
against one county in Dakota because
of its action with reference TO some
county bonds that some of Mr.. HALE's
constituents held. In this connection
Mr.. Cox draws comparison between
Maine and Dakota. which is not at all
tiattering to the former.
Mr.. Cox has an opportunity to dis
tinguish himself now. If he will step
to the front and, assuming leadership
on this question, influence the Demo
cratic house to pass the bill for the adj
mission of South Dakota and an ell
abling act for North Dakota, he will not
only prepare himself for leadership of
his party in the next congress, but he
will give his party a prestige that it
would not otherwise enjoy. The GLOBE
has stood with Mr.. Cox in his Opposi-
ton to the SPRINGER omnibus bill for
the reason that we believed it
to be an unjust and unjuStifi-
fable method of disposing of impor-
tant public questions. Every tub should
stand on its own bottom, and when it
comes to consideration Of the question
of admitting several territories, each ap-
plicant for admission should have a sep
arate hearing. We have furthermore
held that the question of partisan ad-
vantage should be eliminated from these
discussions. Theoretically it should
make no difference to congress what the
political sentiment of the territory's
population may be, so long as the terri
tory itself possesses the requisite quail
fications for statehood. Yet, as a prac-
tical proposition, we know that the pol
tiles of territory does cut an important
figure in this matter. and we presume
always will as long as party divisions
exist. 1t is encouraging, however, to
see an old partisan leader like Sunset
Cox divest himself of the preiudices of
q lifetime and view public question
of this character in non-partisan light
and shape his conduct strictly upon the
line of principle.