St. Paul daily globe., 1888-02-11


mand admission of congress, and that
congress could not possibly refuse, be-
cause this action would represent the
wish of the people and congress could
not possibly go against that. (Aye,
there's the rub. If congress could
only be sure what was the wish
of the peOple-Or if the people
could be sure what was the wish OF the
people, or, in other words. knew what
they did wantD This was their posi-
tion-fairly and squarely-that an EN-
abling act was not necessary at all, and
even at that time some went so far as to
say that the consent of congress was not
necesSary--that territory could be
state anyway. Here, at this early
date, was where this fallacy
led them! 1t was revolution.
1t was not wise OF sensible to
consider such matters seriously. Gen.
Hugh J. Campbell, who is the
acknowledged head and front of this
idea in Dakota, has put himself on
record as follows: Il make you
this prediction: That if you keep this
government alive, and if you are
forced to stand on your legal rights
and set that government up, and
if President Clevel nd disperseS it by
force of arms, just as sure as God
lives Pre- sident Cleveland and the Dem
ocratic party will be hurled from their
power in the White house and in con-
gress, and South Dakota will be admit
ted as a state within twelve mouths
from the time you make the trial"
This is an extract from one of Camp
BELLS speeches i'll the campaign OF 1886;
but that state government, owing to the
conservative good sense of the people OF
this territory, was never set up, and so
(lovnlonh Homo
cratic party were
NOT HURLED FROM THEIR POWER"
But the government at Washington
still lives" Campbell lives, and in fact
they all live. Now what do these same
parties say about Mr.. Springer's bill?
Why, they say that it is a ''damnable
proposition" Mr.. Campbell says:
The fraudulent nature of Springer's bill is
on its face. In the unprecedented and un-
| constitutional provision that the constitution
and state government shall remain in abey-
ance until congress admits; thus enatling
| congress to postpone statehood indefinitely.
Statehood is what we need and have right
| to. Admission may come as II may.
Such provision was never before made by
| congress.
What does this mean? 1t means that
| Mr.. Campbell objects to Mr.. Springer's
| bill because it provides that congress
shall admit new states. What in the
| world is congress for, if not for this pur-
| pose! Is not this just what this Camp
| bell year or so ago wanted? He said
/ an enabling act was not necessary: all
| that was necessary was for congress to
admit, and if congress didn't admit, the
territory would be state anyway. The
query naturally arises. what is the use
of congress, anyway? We don't need an
enabling act taccOrding to Mr.. CampbelFs S
able way of arguing this question.
! That's clear. Now, he comes and says
| that we do not need an act of congress
! to admit, because congress can not say
| that constitution and state govern
ment shall remain in allegiance until
congress admits.'' Clearly. we don't
| need any act of congress to admit Da-
kota. according to Mr.. Campbell's idea.
| Then why are we not a state now? Why
| isn't Dakota state at the present time?
Hasn't Campbell proved it so? We
| have the constitution that he help3dzto
frame at the Sioux Falls convention, and
| that constitution and state government
clearly remain in allegiance until con-
gresS admits. Then we are state:
| there can be no question about
| it-accOrdipg to the Campbell theory
| but when we come down to cold
! facts. we find that in reality we are not
state, and in fact further off than we
were before all the pleasant and fanci-
full theory of Brother Campbell's was
| started. :...e....
The second principal point on which
Gen. Campbell objects to the Springer
bill iS,a he puts it in his own language !;
''In abolishing organized counties
against the interest of the people" Now,
what does this provision of
MR.. sPRINGER'S BILL SAY?
Section % reads as follows: THE conven-
ton authorized to frame constitution, as
| provided in this act, shall incorporate pro-
vision in such constitution abolshing all
counties heretofore established within the
limits of said territory which contain less
than 5000 inhabitants. excluding Indians
not taxed. according to the census
of 1855, or other reliable data, and
shall consolidate the territory couipris
ing the same into new counties of not less
than 3, 900 each and shall fix the comfy seat
and names of such new counties until the
same are changed in the manner provided in
the constitution. The convention shall pro-
vide in the constitution OF said state such
| provisions as may be necessary for the pay
ment of debts of the counties so abolished
and for the. disposition of the property of
| such counties.
1t may be natural for people to 'sraise
their hands in holy horror at this. 1t
don't sound well, L will admit. This
abOlishing institutions that the people
of this territory have established is not
/ pleasant on the face of it; but be,sure
there is good reason for it. Why is this
provision here? 1t is for pur-
pose. In Dakota, in the name of
the organization of new counties,
some of the very worst frauds of the
Republican administrations have been
perpetrated. This point is so well
known as to need no argument. There
are counties now organized in the ter
ritory where nearly every voter in the
county is an office-hOlder. Mercer
County, for instance, was organized in
1883. Two years afterwards, in 1885, il
had a total population of 253-by a
probably rather "stuffed" countEbui
granting the whole number of them there
might have been fifty voters. Yet, in
this county, there were fourteen Off
GERS, drawing all kinds of salaries
bonded Indebtedness has been tloated
to the extent of $11 1876; and yet they
tell us that we must not disturb any OF
the rights of their fifty men to continue
in this sort of business of running thi:
kind of county. The question resolve:
itself at once into this: Whether
the credit of the territory, sths
right of people to settle IN these
without incurring the necessary taxa
ton, to pay off this fraudulent indebted
nesS-are to be considered of more i'm
portance than the sentimental notions
that these so called pioneers must no
be disturbed in any of their so callet
county rights to hold office and run ul
Indebtedness that coming generation
must pay off. When the matter is pu
to this practical test, it mus
be admitted that Mr.. Springe
, had some ground for this provision O
,, his bill. But there are some who will
, say, This is all right, but how are yol
, going to arrange to keep up the credi
of the territory when you go to abolish
ing counties? These counties have in
debtednesses that must be protected O
: the credit of the territory is gone.