Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-02-16
9atlu gress a,la 9akDtaiaa
S0ME COMPARISONS.

that an omnibus bill will soon be pre-
sented by the majority in the house for
the admission of four new states-Dakota,
Washington, Montana and New Mexico.
One corld almost wish that such q bill
would pass IN order to get out OF the
way = number OF persistent and annoy.
ing questions which have long worried
congress n the people, end whlnh
promise to continue 60 to do for many
years. But omnibus bills are generally
framed Tor Interior and dangerous pur-
poses. The object is to secure the
passage OF some measure which standing
alone would have no prospect of sue
cess, Why should DAKOTA, with soc, 600
population, be made dependent upon
New Mexico, with 120, 900 inhabitants?
Half OF the people of New Mexico ere
Mexioans and half breeds, who know
little of and care less for our laws,
language or government. A like dis
crepancy exists in the area of the two
territories. Dakota contains $4,000
square miles of land, while New Mexico
contains 122,460 square miles, much Of
which will never be ct for tiliage or even
pssturage.
their population are as follows:
........ Isl, $50 6 o, 01o
New Mexico .....-.-..I22, 400 1l9. 6a8
Montapa..s............, Jas. 6lu SO, 1853
Washington.,..-...s.... S5. $50 rs. l16
The census OF 1880 is used for the pop-
~ulation of the last three named terri
tories. In the seven years that have IN
teryened the populations of Montana
and Washington have about doubled.
The latest estimate by the governor is
Montana, $780, 600; Washington, 145, 669,
New Mexico, 1855 ,000-in all 523 1859.
Dakota to-day has by many To usands
q greater population han all the other
territories named. 1t has more than
double the quantity of arabic land. The
differences in is even more
marked. Take the corn crop in 1886.
Dakota produced nearly 16, 200 600
bushels, while the three other territories
produced but little over 1000 900. In
wheat Dakota produced in 1856 about
81 100000 bushels, and all the three ter
~ritories named produced less than TO-
600 900 bushels. Last year
Dakota produced over 10000. 600
bushels OF wheat, about one-sixth of the
worlds crop. In oats Dakota produced
in 1886 nearly 81 600, coo bushels, while
the three Other territories named pro-
dueed less than 6 100000 In stock the
disparity is nearly as great. Dakota in
1886 had $4,000 horses, while all the
three territories named had 224 ,226
Other statistics are as significant. In
1886 there we're 597 p~ostofiees il New
Mexico, Washington and Montana,
while in Dakota there were 1893
nearly double. There were 299 banks
in Dakota in 1886 and but So In ali the
three territories named. Dakota's
school expenditures in 1885 were ST.
lSl4 212, while oil the three territories
named expended but $54I, S9a less
than one-thlrd as much. In
Goheol population Dakota exceeds all
the territories and added to them either
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Nevada.
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or
Vermont. In 1887 there were l40 new
spapers in Montana, New Mexico and
Washington, while in Dakota there
were 352. From these statistics il ID
clear that injustice has been done Da,
in the past. Her population in 1880
was greater than that of either OF the
greater than oil of them all of them to-
gsther, and yet her application it is to
be repealed unless coupled with condi-
lions never exaeted for any other state
II New Mexico has enough people for q
state now, certainly Dakota had ten
yeass ago. III Washington Is large
enough for q state why should not
Dakota be divided, when either nalf viii
have 10000 more square miles OF ter
ritory and double the population
These are proper and pertinent ques-
tons which cannot be evaded. This
politicians that are %inyenting q scheme
TO control, in the interest of party, the
admission OF states that have such 9
record as south and north Dakota. ere
making O great mistake. Is will GER
taisiy return to plague the inventors.
There is very grave reason to doubi
the propriety or justice OF admitting
New Mexico now, with her sparse and
alien population. II would be as just
to add the Sioux Indians TO Dakota's
600 900 as TO include the greasers OF NeS
Mexico in her population, as is done
We want no more Neyadas, to be con-
troiIed by rich mining and railroad syn
dicates. We want no more rotten
boroughs with alien voters who may be
bought mp by wealthy schemers, nc
matter what party they represent. III il
was desirable to keep Dakota out unit,
che had 100000, why should three Other
territories be admitted each as q state
when all together they have not 100000
1T is doubtful if New Mexico will have
that number o generation hence.
The people OF Dakota north and south
have submitted to much. IL is mo-
probable that they will submit to the
degrading condition this omnibns bill.
puts upon them. The people will proba-
bly, reject il, as Iowa did the boundaries
fixed first for her. Congress can keep Q
state out OF the union, but congress can
not force in. Wearied by the lonF
Z delay many no doubt have been willing
: to accept admission on any terms devils
ed by the schemers who originated tn,
Aberdeen convention. But this Omnibus
device adds insult 20 injury, and all fol
pitiful partisan purposes. Who knows
how any new state may vote four year,
hence? II it was possible to know
should that control the right OF its peo.
pie TO self.goyernment2 What party
leader OF sagacity is willing to answer
this in the affirmative?
n Crest make story.
San Francisco Examiner: 81 was read
ing .somathin1 in vonr paper abou