The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1889-03-08
CREDIT
gsrs BsinE Lauded to the
81 q iea 4ot Iis Inst tr,t1ne1
tali llity il tho Z
kas1ag the Omnibus Bill
4 hils SUNSET Cox De-
serves the Credit.
Give Credit Whsrc Gtetitf fs Dne.

lsS
Give Credit where Eteditfs Dne.
NEw oRK, Feb. I'd. Especial Cor.
spondsnce The yew fsork y Tribune
jzyary grasefally and promptly gloriaed
iPresident Cleveland ffof signing, 81 liash:
Iington's birthday, Tie bill for the admis-
SION Of four ststes that reach across the
continent Il tmakesis sclimax in its arti:
cle on such q patriotic occasion ~ Claim
Ing for the arand Old Party = ths eredi,
sf securing that which they have been
endeayoriDg 10 do through many years;
( The purpose Of this statsment, which
il made ;hy an impartia observer 81 con,
| gressionsl3 action, Is to state that In the
first instance. q senator from Maine (AIr.
Hale1 owing to some tiefelaction on the
part Of Dakota, OF some county thereof,
to meet certain bonded indebtedness,
that that territory was kept out sof. the
union. This was several years
ago. In the nett place when i,
came before the committee on
territories, with 9 majority Of Demo.
8cHats and strong minsrity Of western
Republicans in the Inst two congresses,
nothing was done to reach q conclusion
&C. - to- admit Dakota The attempt
which WIS made u bring Dakota In at
| lall, had all the elements of delay ana pro.
thibition, because 1t was . bill framed to
bring Dakota in as d whole, ana that bill
wasinumbered 1876, introduced by Mr.
Springer son january 4, 1883. Itwas en-
tiled a bill to enable the people 81
Dakota to form q constitution aid stats
government, and to be admitted into the
Union on an equal footing With the origi.
nal states. Il had minority report
fayoriny the admission OF South Dakota
aad.an enabling act for North Dakota.
When the Flftieth congfess val organ
ized, Mr. Cox Of New Yofk, by some ac! !:
cident. which no one can understand, was
placed second II Mr. Springer on the
committee on territories. He vigorously
opposed the admission Of Dakota without
y
division. He favored the propositionof
the senate. which Con. Harrison had
handsomely advocated in his elaborate re-
;po:t Mr. struble OF Iowa, III Baker. of;
New York ana other members issiiib 81 tiia
committee on territories in the house,
agreed in this view. Mr.. Cox retired
from the committee because as lie said.
he could not compass his wishes as TO
Dakota and the other territories with so
much pr judice already existing against
The division. 4s8s3 ~
The first and long session of this con
gress died out without any thing being
done. Then began series Of attempts
to bring ingthe territories which had &
sufficient population. Thisinciuded New
Mexico, Montana, Washington and both
sDakotas. But nothing resulted until the
elaborate interview with Mr.. Cox in the
New York World last December. That
interview, which lied several columns Of
that paper, aroused a wide spread feeling
and great interest and hope 1t demon.
strated the feasibility of come action; but
1t was prot testing dissent against the action
OF Mr.. Springer and his committee and its
Republ and d Democratic ideas.
Mr. Springer presented to Mr. Cox, MS
the chairman Of the caucus, a call fort
meeting Of the Democratic caucus. At
that meeting the caucus listened to Mr..
Cox for nearly an hour, in which he gave
his reasonssfor division Of Dakota, and
for other measlres which would have
made its admission and that of the other
territories feasible. In that caucus an
earnest feeling was developed by. the
eloauence of Mr. Tsoole, Mr.. Voorhees,
and the other young and eloquent dele
gates frsm thest territories which led 10
anxiety on the part of the Democrats On
behalf OF these territories as states. The
caucus adi ionrned ssoYer for several days
andR full caucus convened to1 consiier
again the territ torial question. AT this
second caucus the Democratic members
led BY Mr.. Breck enrid ge. Of Kentucky Mr..
McMiilin, MI. Oates, and OF hers, tillurged q
denial Of admission to these territories
and. especially they denied the division
Of Dakota. Mr.. Brec ckenrldge was par.
ticulArly anxious to bring in Utah. The
speaker Mr.. Carlisle) did not favcr that.
90 1T was separated. But the inside
truth OF these matters compel sus to say
that Mr.. Springer included il
his irst draft Of! bill,
Recommending an Omnibus meas.
nre, Utah as well as New Mexico. re-.
member Mr.. Cox distinctly told me al
the time that he begged Mr.. Springer to
leave out Utah, asit was notin pursuance
Of the caucus. This swas done. He
begged also. toamend his caucus BILL BY
giving two members OF congress- to South
Dakota. he begged In vain TO allow the
division OF Dakota without the submis-
zion Of that question to the people. b s.
The somnibns Bur, wa, presented a ~
the house. M: Cox was alone in
advocating the BILL with certain amend.
lsmentss But he deferred to the cancus SO
far5as 70 say that he did not believe in
the principle Of having one territory de-
/ pend upon another for ad.ais.
Ssion and after The 4 flrst, sat.
tempt at conference, siif 1T failed
he would take his own Judgment, ire.
4 spective OF the caucus. FhiBshe did. OF
4 course, there isl some denunciation be.
Ascauae he had not fol- owed the CAUCUS In.
structions He contends that heshad fol
Il lowed Y go far as. he proposed to and KEEP,
his faith. But having been thoroughly
4 IDemocratic5 on these territorial subject,
4 from the early days Of Kansas and Ne
4 braska and Judge Douglas atlvoeatint
4 popular soyereig he brought Til
4 question directly before the house. 20
lcourse, he had 10 act in harmony with TIL
4 RApubl blicans smembers Of the committee 8,
l territories and, especially, Mr.. Baker
u who seemed TO take it in charge. MI