St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-04-13
SENATOR DAVIS, SPEECH.

1t is gratifying to all Minnesota peo-
that our new senator sustained his repu-
tation as an orator in such brilliant
style by his maiden effort in the SEN
ate. but it must be matter of regret to
both his political friends and adverse
ries that Senator DAVIS should have
wasted so much brilliancy on an illog-
ical argument. If his speech had been
made in favor Of the admission Of Da-
kota as whole his premises would
have been correct and his argument
conclusive. But it wasn't made with
that object in view. He made the mis-
take not infrequent with lawyers of at
tempting to bend principles to the case
instead of adjusting the case to prin-
ciples.
The historical part of the senator's
speech is interesting, and, in the main,
correct, and his statements relative to
the growth and development of Dakota
are true to the letter. He presents his
facts in an attractive style that sheds
fresh luster on his reputation as an ora
tor. So that it is not to the quality OF
the cloth he WeaveS so much as it is to
the fit of the garment that we object.
An argument that would have been
unanSWerable in advocacy of PROPOSE
ton to admit Dakota as whole doesn't
fit anywhere in support of measure to
divide the territory, admitting one part
and leaving the other out to be sub
jected indefinitely to the hardships
which he so graphically describes as
pertaining to territorial conditions.
What have the 25O,000 people in the
Northern part of Dakota done that Sen
ator DAVIS wishes to lop them off and
condemn them to perpetual territorial
bondage? Why should they not share
with their brethren Of the Southern part
Of the territory in the benefits which are
to be realized from statehood?
1t occurs to us that the senator got
astray in his attempt to show that a
precedent had been set whereby ter
rtory had the right to fiXitS own bound
aries in preparing itself for admission
to the Union. Kansas and Nebraska
and Arkansas and other states may
have been admitted without enabling
acts other than the equities which were
acquired by the ordinance of 'S7 and the
treaty with France. But the senator
seems to have overlooked the fact that
in every instance territorial boundaries
have been fixed by the federal govern
ment. The act of congress which es-
tablishes territory defines its bound
aries, and there is no power outside OF
congress to change them. 1t the peO-
pie of South Dakota were to attempt to
establish either a territorial or state
government to the exclusion OF the PEG
pie of North Dakota, without first hay
ing obtained authority from congress to
do SO, they would soon learn from a
painful experience the fallacy of Sen
ator DAVIS argument on this point.
There is another point made by Sena-
tor DAVIS which sounds rather queer
coming from man who occupies his
position. He says, in support of his
plea for the admission of South Dakota:
Trade, like migration, moves in par
allels. South Dakota is tributary to
Chicago. North Dakota is bound COM
mercially to st. Paul, Minneapolis and
Duluth" If this is true, why. then,
should a Minnesota senator be urging
proposition to construct new state eX-
clusiyely in the interests of Chicago?
According to the logic of his own argu-
ment Senator DAVIS is willing to sacri-
flee ST. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth
to benefit their rival On the shores Of
Lake Michigan. But his premises are
false. South Dakota is as much tribu-
tary to st. Paul as it is to Chicago, and
is rapidly becoming more so as the
Manitoba and Milwaukee lines are being
extended into that section. The time is
rapidly Fastening when the whole of
Dakota will be tributary to our Mime
sofa metropoli. If Minnesota has any
special interest in this matter, it most
certainly lies in the direction OF admit
ting Dakota as whole. 1t does seem
that our Minnesota senators should have
more regard to the protection of our
local interests than a mere desire to in
dulge in pyrotechnic oratory on an inn
practicable proposition.
--=4ss---s