Sturgis advertiser. (Sturgis, Dakota [S.D.]) 1887-1???, 1888-06-20
DIVISION AND STATEHOOD.

Here in the far east comparatively lit
tie interest has been taken in the repeat
ed efforts that have been made to secure
the recognition OF Dakota as state, or
rather as two states, yet in many re-
spects the movement is one of greater
importance thdif has been accorded to it
and entitled to wider attention than it
has heretofore received. Particularly at
the present time is the matter one of
much moment, as the continued efforts
put forth by the citizens of the great ter
ritory now are being concentrated and
something Of the nature of crisis is at
hand. The movement to secure the adj
mission to the Union of Dakota dis a
state assumed very tangible shape and
formidable proportions over two and a
half years ago. In September, 1885, a
convention was called in Sioux Falls and
there then was framed constitution for
a state that was to include all that por-
ton of the present territory Of Dakota
lying south of the forty sixth parallel of
latitude, and two months later full
ticket Of state officers was elected as fol-
lows: Governor, A. G. Mellete; ieuten-
ant governor, A. E. Frank; secretary of
state, T.. d. Murphy, and treasurer, D..
W. Diggs. Two United States senators
and two representatives were chosen at
the same time, the purpose of this course
of action being to follow the precedent
established by Kansas, Iowa and Michi-
gan, all of which organized their state
governments without any enabling act,
and then demanded recognition as states,
which was granted to them.
The unwise feature of this action lay
in the fact that provision was made to
secure statehood for only the southern
half of Dakota, leaving the remainder Of
the territory in its territorial form. This
slight and the usurpation of the name
Dakota was sharply resented by the
northern citizens end, therefore, last fall
the dividing line was changed to about
seven miles further south and the scheme
was modified to provide for the division
of the territory into North Dakota and
South Dakota, for both of which state
hood is now asked. In point of area
these two sections are about equal, each
containing about $4,000 square miles,
but in point Of population South Dakota
has the precedence, the apportionment
being about 100000 against 100000.
The division of the territory has not
always been point in regard to'which
there has been a unanimous sentiment of
favor. At first it was strongly opposed
by the citizens of the northern section
who regarded the idea as boding per-
petual territorialhood for them, and the
ballot taken upon the question Of di-
vision last fall resulted in a southern
of $4,000 votes in favor of di-
vision andta northern majority of 10000
against division, or net majority Of
5000, ont Of a total of about 10000
votes cast, in faEoy-of division.
Congress has given but little satisfac-
zion to the petitioners for the admission
Of Dakota. The senate has manifested
a favorable disposition in regard to the
question but it's action has been neutral
lied by the house, when partisan feeling
has been the moving impulse. In what
ever form it might enter the union of
states, Dakota would bring republican
contingent and it was for the purpose Of
excluding this accession to its opponents
that the democratic majority in the house
has blocked the way opened by the SEN
ate. Two years ago the senate passed a
bill granting the rights of statehood to
Dakota, but the bill was promptly
killed IN the house. During the present
session the same bill has been passed by
the senate and is now awaiting the action
of the house, which will probably be as
before, Senator Springer has Row in
committee an omnibus bill' which pro-
= u
vides for,the admission Of the undivided
territory Of Dakota, and the territories
Of Montana, Washington and Idaho.
Thia bill is regarded with great disfagor
IN Dakota, az, by its provisions, if once