Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-02-16

| >>tA oosa ANcW bkApSAiES bHu 1seW 1OrK
claim the territory of which Vermont
was formed into state, bnt it is also a
fact that both Maine and Vermont were
separate and distinct communities,
though the former was for time united
with and under the jurisdiction oil Mas
saohusets, as was also the state OF New
Hampshire. But Massachusetts gave
up her claim to the territory embraced
IN the state of Maine, as New York and
New Hampshire gaveup their respective
| claims to the territory embraced in the
state of Vermont, and both were admit
ted into the union as states. All who
are conversant with the early history OF
| the original thirteen colonies and the
form of government which obtained
during. British rule, need net be told of
the various conflicting olsina of tks ori-
ginel thirteen states TO the outlying ter
ritory surrounding them, but which was
all absorbed by the general government
and passed under It's control after the
adoption OF the constitution, and the
consequent formation of closer union
than existed under the confederation.
When the constitution was adopted
in 1877, and thereafter ratified by the
thirteen organized states, the debts of
the colonies was assumed by the United
States, and the jurisdiction and
the boundaries of the several states
a..
permanently settled and freed, several
states giving up their claims TO territory
attached to them under the colonial sys.
TEN. Massachusetts released her claim 10
Maine, New York and New Hampshire
to that of Vermont, and no where in
history does ii appear that either Maine
or Vermont was admitted into the union
OF states by reason of division OF q
former state, IN the senee
contemplated by the foregoing section
OF the constitution. Therefore we are
only repeating @ historio fact when we
aay that Virginia in the only state that
has eyer been diysded after il became
state, and that division was not made in
accordance with The foregoing .conrtitu-
tional provision.
In view OF these historic facts, there
fore, is it not little dangerous and OF
exceedingly doubtful pEopgis.y. to nnaar-
take at this remote period la our ooun-
try's history, to establish new prece-
dent IN the admission OF Htates--that OF
admitting them twice or four times as
large as the best interests OF The people
demand, and trusting to congressional
action, conjointly with the state, fora
division afterwards? If congress refuses
division before admission, what assur-
ance have the people that it will not
continue to refuse division after adn1is-
sion2 III congress is willing to concade
that the people of Dakota should have
the right to make two states from her
domain. if they SO elect, why not concede
that right now? The people have spoken
ID favor of two stateg-not only by their
ballots at the polls, but in every organ
lied convention OF both political parties
for years past.
1t is impossible for them TO make
their demand more emphatic and de-
termined than they have in this behalf,
Therefore, l say, let no divisionist be
deceived by the shallow argument, or
rather pretense, that division after ad-
mission is at all probable. II division
cannot be accomplished before adm;s-
sion, it will never be accomplished
after admission, and the one state pro-
psgandists and followers OF Ordway
johnson and Bill Springer know this
perfectly we'll Let diyisionists stand
firmly for the principle they have
battled for SO persistentIy for the past
eighteen years, and like manly men, in
siat end maintain to the last, that under
God the Peopleishail rule.
J.. ID. It, PooRE