Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-03-06

thai q very large number OF those people
prefer q territorial condition for some
time rather than admission u.s. single
Htate. The majority Of the committee
see fit to place the failure of Dakota in
obtaining statehood heretofore upon the
ground that there has been an effort
made by these people to secure o divi-
zion OF the territory. This is certainly
a very strange assertion to make and
will strike those who are acquainted
with the history of the division
movement in Dakota, and the cause
OF the failure of congressional
action as absurd and grotesque in the
extreme. The object and motive then
for the failing to permit the question OF
the admission of Dakota to be consider.
ed by the house during the ~forty.elght
and forty ninth congresses is disclosed.
1t WAS TO force these people by q neglect
and disregard Of their constitutional
rights ae American citizens to abandon
their cherished hopes for a division of
the territory-to coeroe them into nc.
csptinR what they don't wish, to yield
what they are correcti in maintaining, and
that which will be detrimental to their
interests to abandon. This is practical.
ly saying to those people. lyon mus.
abandon ali hope for a division OF your
territory and accept admission as o
whole or you will get nothing from the
hands Of the American congress, and i:
you ever are admitted it must be here
after by future legislation. We promise
you nothing" Even the majority of
the committee in the report are free to
admit that the time may come when 1t
will be for the best interests OF all
concerned that Dakota shall divided
into two states. Then. Why not do it
now? What earthly excuse is there for
doubt expressed regarding the ability of
those people to support proper state
government? Every requirement. I'M
posed upon those people has been met
and fulfilled, every argument answered,
and still the fact remains that they are
denied the simple rights guaranteed to
them as American citizens. The majority
also assign as reason for
disregarding the wishes OF
Dakota, expressed by them at
the recent election in the territory upon
the question of division, that the ma
iority Tor division is confined to less
than half the counties in the territory.
The credit of discovering this reason for
disresarding the will of the majority be-
longs wholly with the majority OF the
ccmmittee, and il seems to us that its
manifest injustice is so clear as to require
no argument to refuse il. Not only
must msjorities include tho peonie, but
geographically the territory. L. is I'M
questionably fortunate for the present
administration that the rule adopted by
the majority OF she committee applies
only TO o territory like Dakota, and moi
to a great state like Dakota, and not &c
a great state like New York. Ii nusi
be very convenient indeed TO discover
and apply 81 flexible o theory regarding
maiorities as this. 1t can b.
disregarded or applied as readily as
the sleight-of-hand tricks of a
fakir. IT these four territories ought Il
be admitted, let congress do &c; but d.
it in Q dignified, atatesmanlike manner
and not on such conditions as this mon
strous Omnibus incongruity provides
mot on the basis that Dakota ought
not to be divided, because not large
enough for two states, while offering il
the same bill Washington Territory
with 10 600 less eqnare miles THAI either
north or south Dakota, and less popula
tion by $4,000 than north Dakota, ant
less by $4,000 than south Dakota, enc
two ether territories, each of which hal
less claims for statehood than Washing
coz.