New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-04-10
A PLEA FOR SOUTH DAKOTA
MR. PLATTs SPEECH IN THE SENATE
THE INJUSTICE OF DENYING STATEHOOD TO THE
TERRITORY STRONGLY PORTRAYED.
JBr TELEGRAPH TO TRIBUNE

TERRITORY STRONGLY PORTRAYED.
IBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON, April 9.-The question OF the ad-
mission of Dakota into the Union Is not o new
one in the Senate II has been before that
body a number of times and the claims Of tho
Territory have been ably presented by number
Of Republican Senators In former Congresses.
They have never, however been presented IN
clearer, more striking and moro convincing series
Of arguments than they were set forth to-day
by Senator Piatt, OF Connecticut This. OF course,
b not o reflection upon the previous efforts OF
Mr. Piatt's Republican colleagues 1t only goes
70 prove that he has pro6ted by their experience,
and has known how to utilize the facts and fig
urcs gathered by them in connection with newer
data. justified by the rapid development of Da-
kota within the last two years.
Mr.. Platt's long service ON the Territories Com
nittce pointed to him as the natural champion OF
the claims Of Dakota when Senator Harrison,
OF Indiana, went out of the Senate. His speech
of to-day showed that the Republicans made no
mistake when they chose him as the chairman OF
this important committee 1t was an able speech
carefully thought out replete with unanswefaole
statistics and delivered in that earnest and en-
phatic manner which carries with 1t convlcton,
though il may fail TO penetrate the pachy-
cannot rise above his craftsmanship long enough to
do simple act Of justice toward the citizens
of the Territory of Dakota.
ENTITLED TO KEEP THE NAME DAKOTA.
Mr. Platt said that the bill was one OF four
which had been reported by the Committee on
Territories for the admission of new States 1t
proyided for the admission of the southern part
of Dakota. under q constitution already formed.
The other three bills were enabling acts for the
Territories Of Washington, Montana and the hortn-
err portion OF Dakota. =.
suggestions, he said, had been made against
the use of the names Of North Dakota and South
IL. 1oA fOnn
names: others for those of distinguished Amerl-
cans Of former years. While he would be gao
TO respect this sentiment flor 1t was nothing put
Q SENTIMENT the conditions were such that the
name OF Dakota could not be taken away from
either portion OF tho Territory without lnlustice
and without doing violence to the feelings ana
wishes OF, he believed, every inhabtant IN the
Territory To give some other name than DaEOta
30 either portion OF the Territory would seem ike
the authorities OF town going into family ana
insisting on giving TO its members other names
than those they had received from their parents
II would be as unjust as to attempt 70 change
the n,me Of North Carolina or South Carolina
The proposed State Of South Dakota had a popn
lstion OF 400 900, and he thought they had rghb
70 be admitted State In time TO participate IN
the next Presidential election.
Mr. Vest-Do you that the people OF South Dakota
have legal constitutional right 10 come into the
Union without action on the part Of congressf
Mr. Platt-NO-
Mr.. vest-Tha, claim has been asserted and wanted
whether the Senator from Connecticut Endorsed
thai proposition not
Mir Pstt-I do not claim that the people Of Dakota
can set up state Government fer themselves indepen
aesiy OF the action Of Congress- but DO claim that they
hx.p right TO form constitution and that Congress has
70 right deny their admission.
TOO LARGE FOR A SINGLE STATE
Speaking of the division of the present Terri
tory, he said that strongly convinced was he
that the Territory ought TO be divided. he would
be in favor of il, even If the people of the Ter
. ,oo sgs ss ar Sna State h' IT Ss mc
long from north 10 south, and 400 miles wlde
from east TO west 1t was very much larger
than England, Ireland Scotland and wales; ana,
(aside from its non-cOmmercial qualities, capable
of sustaining as large population. lhe area
OF those countries amounted to l22,OOO square
miles; that of Dakota to l49 900 IL WAS n as
large, practically, the States OF New-l ork, Penn
syivania, New-Jersey, Maryland and virginia
combined; as large as all Ncw-England York
and Ncw-Jersey; larger than OHIO Indiana ana
Illinois combined The proposed State OF South
Dakota would be 1900 square miles, and that
was certainly large enough fer an agricultural
State lie had seen Washington dispatch to
Dakota newspaper stating that Dakota would De
admitted as a whole, and the dispatch was print
ed with the heading An Imperial State" There
was no Imperial State wanted in this country.
No State was wanted great and strong as to
glory in its comparative greatness. Physical
Is well as legal equality among the States was
what was wanted No State should be over
Swallowed by any other State
As TO the suggestion made at the last session
that the cutting up of Territories into numerous
States would convert the Senate into a MOB
Mr. Platt replied that it was better that the
Senate should be so enlarged to represent the
popular will and to feel the popular pulse than
that State should be admitted so large as TO
have an abnormally large representation in the
House of Representatives.
There were in the Union nine States having
q less population than the proposed state OF
South Dakota. lie argued that South Dakota
bad brought herself within the precedents under
which States had been admitted. 1t could rot
be said that she had done ANYTHING Irregular
WHY should she not be admitted-and admitted
now? WHY should her prayer be longer denied
why should the Senate turn a deaf ear to her
prayerp Why should the Senate refuse to par
Ncipate in that greatest and grandcst act of legis
iation-ihe admission Of new State into the
Union. thus adding to the grandeur, the strength,
The glory and the renown of the American Ee-
Mr. Butler obtained the floor; and the bill
went over till tomorrow.