St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-02-25
A VERY Open LETTER.
A Globe Interview With Congressman
Springer Brings Gen. Campbell
From His Retreat.
He Draws History on the Illinois Con-
gresham and Withers With
Sarcastic Thrusts.
Spicy and Pointed as the Puissant
Division General Is in the Habit
Of Being.


noiS-Sir: | see in the st. Paul GLOBE
of Feb. Is a reported interview with
you, in which you are represented as
saying, on the Dakota question, that
The fact is that South Dakota is try
ing to secede, and North Dakota is try
ing to keep her into the union into
which they were bound in 1861 by Re-
publican congress and Republican
president, at time when the south
portion of the entire country was trying
to secede. The majority in the North
was against secession then, and the ma
jority of North Dakota is against Seces-
sion now. 1t takes two to make a con-
tract, and ought to take two to annul it,
and both should remain in it until both
sides should agree to dissolve it,
The st. Paul GLOBE, the leading
Democratic organ of the West, is
friendly to you land to the great party
Wuich you represent, and assume that
it has not misrepreSented you. Other
wise | should have been inclined to re-
gard this reputed interview as a some
what malicious misrepresentation of the
views of so distinguished and able a
representative of the Western DemOc-
racy as yourself.
Illinois, we are told, even Democratic
Illinois, is not unfriendly to the inter-
ests of the great West, of which she is
so proud a part.
Naturally so, for Western interests
are her interests. Therefore, when her
favOrite son, upon whom she has pre-
Sumptively conferred the mantle of the
great Douglas, takes the position as
Sumed in your interview, hostile as it is
to every interest of the West, we would
nave discredited the truthfulness of the
report, had it not been vOuched for by
your party friends.
Our incredulity gave way to un-
feigned amaZement as we read your re-
markable prOnunciamentO.
Mr.. Douglas, your distinguished pred
eceSSOr, as the leader of the Illinois
Democracy, was brilliant and daring
statesman. who often aStOniShed the
people by the fertility and originality
of his resources, and the audacity of
his measures. But Stephen A. Douglas,
IN his most audaciOuS mood, never as
tOnished the people by doctrine so en-
tirely original and novel as that an
nOunced by you in this interview.
You say that
''South Dakota is trying to secede,"
because she wishes to have a fair-SiZed
state. with 100000 people and ample
resources, carved out of the immense
domain of the territory of which she
now forms a part.
This is new and startling PROPOSE
ton. What other statesman ever an
nOunced the discovery that the diviS-
ion of territory, in the formation OF
new state, was secession?
But is it true, Mr.. Springer? When
Illinois was divided from the great ter
ritOry of Illinois, to form the state of
Illinois, was that secession?
What will your Illinois friends say to
that doctrine. Mr.. SprirgerH
WneT Unlo,L indiana, Michigan, Wis
cOnSin, Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Min
neSota. Kansas and Nebraska were,
each of them, divided from the immense
territories of which they formed a part,
did they each and all of them commit
the crime of secession?
But in this remarkable interview you
say further that lit takes two to make
a contract, and ought to take two to
apnul it, and both should remain in it,
until both sides should agree to dis
solve it,"
Pardon our presumption in ssking
you question, for we know that it is
presumption in your eyes for inhabit-
ants of territory to question the wis
dom of one occupying so high station
as that of member of congress.
When and by what tribunal was
the organic act creating territory de-
clared to be a contract between the
different parts of the territory?
When Illinois was territory, was
there a contract between that part
which is now the state of Illinois and
the remaining parts, which became the
territories of Wisconsin and Michigan.
that Illinois should remain forever a
part of them until '.bOth sides agreed to
dissolve" the union between them?
Or, was Illinois a different sort of
territory from Dakota?
Or, is the difference one between the
statesmen of that day and this?
Is it that the Springers, and Buffers,
greater than the ClayS, and Bentons,
and Jacksons, and Douglases OF the
days of Illinois territory?
If the request of Dakota, that she be
divided, is now ''secession," and that of
Illinois was not ''SeceSSiOn;' if the Or
ganjc act creating Dakota is ICON
tract" and that creating Illinois was
not contract" how do you account
for it that no statesmen till your day
ever discovered OF announced SO grave
and important change in the princi-
pies of territorial government?
If it were any other than the great
leader of the Democracy of Illinois, and
the chairman of the committee on terri
tories, and one of the chosen leaders of
the Democracy in congress, who had
said this, most people would have styled
it pardon the world nonsense.
No one would have believed that such
craftsmanship could lead the great
Democratic party, for the obvious rea-
son that if it did it would lead it speedily
to the devil. No party in the world
could survive such leadership twelve
months.
Notwithstanding the authority of
your high position, and the pains you
have taken to impress us with that fact,
the firm faith of the people of Dakota is
that such strong and fair Democrats as
Hon. S. S. Cox and the representative
Western Democrats, South and North,
will emphatically disown such leader
ship, when the Dakota question comes
before them, and will refuse to be par
ties to the attempted fraud and folly of
the Springer bill. Yours respectfully,