without delay, to collect, digest, and properly arrange the laws by which the District is governed, and which are now embraced in several collections, making thein available only with great difficulty and labor. The suggestions they make touching desirable amendments to the laws relating to licenses granted for carrying on the retail traffic in spirituous liquors, to the observance of Sunday, to the proper assessment and collection of taxes, to the speedy punishment of minor offenders, and to the management and control of the reformatory and charitable institutions supported by Congressional appropriations, are commended to careful consideration.

I again call attention to the present inconvenience and the danger to life and property attending the operation of steam railroads through and across the public streets and roads of the District. The propriety of such legislation as will properly guard the use of these railroads and better secure the convenience and safety of citizens is manifest.

The consciousness that I have presented but an imperfect statement of the condition of our country and its wants, occasions no fear that anything omitted is not known and appreciated by the Congress, upon whom rests the responsibility of intelligent legislation in behalf of a great nation and a confiding people.

As public servants we shall do our duty well if we constantly guard the rectitude of our intentions, maintain unsullied our love of country, and with unselfish purpose strive for the public good.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3, 1888.

GROVER CLEVveland.

New States. The most important action taken by the Congress at its closing session was to provide for the admission of four new States into the Union.

The Senate, on April 19, 1888, passed a bill for the admission of South Dakota into the Union, and for the organization of the Territory of North Dakota. In the House, on Jan. 15, 1889, Mr. Springer, of Illinois, reported a substitute for the Senate bill, which provided for the admission of the States of Dakota, Montana, Washington, and New Mexico, with a proviso for two States, North Dakota and South Dakota, instead of Dakota. Mr. Cox, of New York, in supporting the substitute, said in a general way:

"There is a sort of glamour and fascination about the admission of States into our imperial federation. I am subject to influences of a romantic character. But they have not disturbed, and I think will not disturb that discretion which belongs to Congress when it votes to make complete the circle of our Federal felicities. "Mr. Speaker, as we approach the centenary in the life of our nation the mind becomes reminiscent. It would also be prophetic. In dim outline the ancient seers saw, through the mists of western seas, our hemisphere as the home of a race which rejoiced in a golden age.' These dreams take hold upon the imagination. They give an illusion to our discretion,' on bills like these looking to future empire.

"The imaginary commonwealth of Plato was not altogether unsubstantial. Some of the visions upon the horizon of our early epochs have found realization. But a republic never im.agined by Plato, nor dreamed of by Harrington or Sir Thomas More, has found its home in our hemisphere. Like all hope that has its fruition, this has come to us through toil, danger, and heroism. These sacrifices have no parallel in the adventures of our race or upon our planet. "Out of what were mere nebulæ four centuries VOL. XXIX.-13 A

Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, and Alaska, are springing to the front. They are fulfilling the conditions of political independency, while our other Territories, in so far as population and resources are concerned, have already human souls and prosperous opulence enough for a more exalted relation in the hierarchy of Statehood.

66

What concerns us immediately, Mr. Speaker, is the admission as States, with proper boundaries and suitable numbers, of five Territories. These are combined in the substitute-the two Dakotas, Montana, Washington, and New Mexico. I omit purposely any consideration of Utah. As to Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, and Alaska, provision will be made in time that, when they attain a population adequate under the Representative ratio, steps may be taken for their admission. So that in the consideration of the Territorial question we view it from a standpoint whose scope comprehends nearly all of our remaining domain.

"It is well to remember, notwithstanding certain precedents to the contrary, that these Territories can not become political States with equal privileges in a Federal way without certain formalities. There is no leaping, like Minerva from the brain of Jove, fully equipped and matured. Under our system there are provisions to be observed before the boon of stately equality and the regality of 'unassuming pomp' are bestowed.

66

The examination of these formalities involves the question, first, of power; second, the array of precedents; and, third, the deductions of reason.

"As to the power. Is it not ample on the part of Congress? Why, sir, there is only one limitation. That power is found in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution. It says: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." In a subsequent section it guarantees to every State in this Union a republican form of government.' Here is a power to admit. It is unquestionable. The meaning of the phrase 'a republican form of government' was much discussed during the slavery agitation, before and during our civil war. It needs no rehearsal now. There is no danger that any constitution made by any of these Territories will be unrepublican in form. It will not only have the authority from Congress, the stamp of maturity, and the reflection of the popular will, but in its very body as well as in its essence it will be republican.

The Territories which we propose to admit have an organic law from Congress and they are under certain clauses of our Federal statutes. The organic law does not provide for a convention of the people to form constitutions. There has been no legislation by Congress in that direction, and there is no inhibition in our statutes upon such action.

Whether it be necessary that Congress should initiate proceedings looking to a convention and a constitution and admission, or whether a Terri

torial legislature may do this I will not now discuss. If Congress has not done it in the organic act, it has certainly not delegated the power to do it to the Territorial legislature, and therefore, although the precedents are not all one way, it would certainly be more regular and comport more with the dignity of the proceeding that the scepter of sovereignty should be derived from the people of the United States in Congress assembled.

"I am not unaware that some precedents can be quoted for the admission of States where the initiative did not begin with Congress, but in the body of the Territory; and although there may be absolute discretion, limited, as I have stated, in Congress to admit States, regardless of the initial steps, it is safer to follow the words of Jefferson as to the first Constitution of Virginia, adopted in 1776, when he said that the Legislature of that time had been elected only for the ordinary purposes of legislation. He denied that the acquiescence of the people had supplied the want of original power to create the Constitution. This was in 1824. He fortified his opinion by saying

That of the twenty-four States then under the Federal organization, twenty-three have disapproved the doctrine and example of Virginia, and have deemed the formal authority of their people a necessary foun

dation for their Constitution.

"In the case of Arkansas, Gen. Jackson's Attorney-General decided that the Legislature could

not act in the formation of a State Government. In the Michigan case, Mr. Buchanan held that such acts were usurpation. California is no precedent, for her case, like that of Texas, was exceptional. The Lecompton Constitution is no precedent; the people of Kansas set aside the Lecompton Constitution as null. She came in afterward under the authority of Congress. I had the pleasure, under much objurgation from Republicans, of voting for Kansas. Kentucky was admitted without a constitutional convention. Her Constitution was not even submitted to her people. Tennessee, in 1796, formed a State without asking Congress. The question was discussed in Congress. The majority of the statesmen who engaged in that discussion maintained the same right which was ordained in 1787, and upon that right Tennessee was admitted. Indiana came in under an enabling act. Iowa, Michigan, Florida, and Oregon came in under constitutions whose only authority were the conventions which were held under legislative acts.

"In many of our States there were no enabling acts at all. So that there is no uniformity of procedure in matters of this nature.

In so far as this question can be distorted into a party question, I may say that there is a uniform line of precedent for the admission of States into the Union, under conditions not so urgent or favorable for Statehood as those presented by the Territories named in the substitute of the honorable gentleman from Illinois.

"The ordinance of 1787 was a compact. By it the people, in certain boundaries, when they attained 60.000 inhabitants, were authorized to form States and demand admission as an act of justice.' By the acts of Congress of June 20, 1834, and April 20, 1836, this ordinance was extended to the Territory of Wisconsin. That Ter

ritory then included Dakota. Section 1,891 of the Revised Statutes recognized the same right in the present Territory of Dakota.

"Our custom, sir, as to population has not been uniform. If population is to be the test of admission, the Territories in the substitute have each a sufficient number for one member of Congress. This is the moral, though not the legal touchstone by which the admission of States should be determined. Many of our States have been admitted with less than a representative ratio. Illinois was 380 less; Florida, 6,000 less; Oregon, 43,000 less; Kansas, about 20,000 less; and Nevada 87,381 less than the ratio! The ratio in 1864, when Nevada was admitted, was 127,381. Nebraska was less than the ratio by 27,000, and Colorado by 31,425."

As to the qualifications of each Territory for Statehood, Mr. Cox said:

"If the Republican party could vote for New Mexico fourteen years ago, why can not they do it now? She has added 55,000 in population since the census of 1880 was taken. In the last year 384,000 acres of public land have been entered for actual occupation and improved. She is engaged in the construction of railroads across her territory, and is opening new sections to settlement and establishment. At the end of the year which has just passed there was completed 2,000 mileage of railroads. Her grain-crops and other products, especially grapes and semi-tropical fruits, grow in profusion, while her cattle ranges are among the marvels of her growth. She had an increase of 135,000 head of cattle in 1888 over 1887, and her mines are becoming productive after the idleness of years, if not of centuries.

It will not do, therefore, to say that New Mexico has not enough population or wealth to support a State government; nor is it just to the elements which permeate that Territory to say that she has too much ignorance or too small an admixture of intelligence for the regulation of a State. It is no objection to her admission that the peon and mongrel race forms a portion of her population, for the same rule would have kept out California, and would to-day disbar the States South for their mixed colored elements. It is no objection that the New Mexicans speak a Spanish patois, for California had the same disability and has outgrown it promptly. The progress which New Mexico is now enjoying in mining and stock-growing, sheep-raising and agriculture, indicates that though portions of her soil may be barren, rainless, and arid, she has all the elements of growth, and will shine as a fit embodiment of Statehood in the catalogue of States.

"From the reports of the governors of our Territories it will appear that as to population Alaska has 50,000 people and $25,000,000 in wealth; Idaho has 100,000 in population and $65,000,000 in wealth; Arizona 120,000 population and $75,000,000 in wealth. As to the other Territories, omitting Utah, Dakota is registered as having 600,000 in population and $320,000,000 in wealth: Washington 168,000 population and $250,000,000 in wealth; Montana 140,000 population and $70,000,000 in wealth. But I have no doubt that Montana has to-day a sufficiency for one member of Congress. So that in the bill proposed

there is no objection to any of those five Territories on account of wealth or population.

"First, as to Montana. Her growth is at the rate of 10,000 a year and 100,000 over that of the census of 1880. Her financial condition is sound and stable, with money in the treasury and freedom from debt. She has every inducement to emigration, for her taxes are light. Her mines of gold and silver and lead are even greater than her agricultural and pastoral resources.

"Second, as to Washington Territory. Her Governor believes the population I have named to be a low figure and that at present her population is equal to nearly 188,000. Her gain in values, though not equal to that of Dakota, is simply enormous, being a gain of over $65,000,000 during the past ten years. She has nearly 1,200 miles of railroad, and over her bosom are borne the products of Eastern Asia, as well as her own commercial and agricultural produce, in which fish and lumber figure prominently.

"As to Dakota, it is to me amusing, if not astonishing, that those who have had charge of our Territorial affairs in this House should require another expression from Dakota as to the matter of division.

66

Again and again, through her conventions of both parties and her Legislatures, has she asked for that division, respectfully, earnestly, and persistently. The fact is that by the action of this Congress the question of division has practically disappeared. Still it is submitted by the third section of the substitute, and I am content if gentlemen desire to have it submitted again. It is no obstacle to my vote for admission, and it seems to give our friends some relief, since no one desires to force Dakota apart in order to admit her as twins. It seems to be practically concluded that she will be divided, according to the provisions of the bill, upon the seventh standard parallel. The submission of the question of division may be wasteful excess, but so long as it comports with a certain regularity in procedure I will not object to it.

"Dakota in length and breadth, in population, in area, in wealth, and in progress, stands unexampled in the annals of mankind for material, political, and, I may say, intellecual and spiritual advancement.

"I will not argue the propriety of dividing her, nor will I discuss now the necessity of complying with the rule which I have laid down-of giving to her members of Congress in proportion to her population. It is the rule of the Constitution and the rule of right. But I will say that the census of 1890 will show that Dakota, which began with 14,000 population in 1870 and rose to 135,000 population in 1880, and has to-day over 600,000 population-I will say, that a State which leaped in the last decade, from 1870 to 1880, 885 per cent. in the increase of her population, will have in 1890, by the least computation, 1,329,750 people, with seven members of Congress to represent her in her entirety.

Every element connected with the progress of this remarkable Territory, including her 4,000 miles of railroad, all point with no unmistakable gesture toward the division of the State. There can be no greater indignity, Mr. Speaker, than in keeping so vast a country, with a population so energetic and hopeful, so industrious and far

sighted, under a Territorial form of government. The people there desire to vote for the Chief Magistrate of the Union. They desire to have a voice under the Constitution of the United States. They desire to have representation at this Capitol. They desire to govern themselves by their own elected officials. They desire that their incomeless school-lands shall be utilized for the education of their children. They desire courts of their own judges. They desire the right to make their own laws and to reform them at pleasure. They want neither the satraps of the Orient nor the satraps of reconstruction.

66

When they pay their taxes, they desire a voice as to the disposition of the moneys. They desire even when traveling from one part of their Territory to another something less than a thousand miles of their journey for the argument of cases. Because there is little or no commercial intercourse between North and South Dakota, because one part is reached by one system of railroad and the other by another, and because they are different in their very organizations north and south, as well as in their homes of charity and institutions of learning, they wish that independency which division will give them, and that liberty to which they were accustomed before leaving their homes in the States to build an empire in the wilderness.

"Dakota has already spoken for division through her conventions as she had often spoken before. Joining with her sisters Montana and Washington, she appeals in behalf of the Northwest to this Congress of the nation for the recognition of her movement toward Statehood. She points to her population and her wealth, and with no unmeaning gesture to the history of our States. She admonishes us that Kentucky came in with 74,000, Tennessee with 67,000, and yet she has ten times as many people as had either of these States on admission. She points to the admission of Ohio with her 35,000; Missouri, with her 66,000; Michigan, with her 65,000; Florida, with her 64,000; Iowa, with her 78,000; California, with her 92,000; Oregon, with her 50,000; Kansas, with her 107,000; Minnesota, with her 120,000; Nebraska and Colorado, with their 100,000 each; and Nevada-what an anticlimax-with her 40,000. She says to the nation, Behold our 600,000 people, and give us the habiliments of Statehood according to our growth!' When divided, South Dakota is five times the average of our States in population and North Dakota four times."

Mr. Baker, of New York, objected to the substitute as confounding the claim of Dakota, which had already prepared for Statehood and demanded admission to the Union as a constitutional right, with the passage of enabling acts for other Territories. He said:

"We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the people of Dakota and of these other Territories, that immediate legislation be had in their behalf; but no good reason can be given, none has been attempted, why the pending act to admit South Dakota should be turned into a mere enabling act and the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, and Washington included in one bill therewith. An enabling act is a mere invitation to do what South Dakota has already done. far as it relates to South Dakota the omnibus

So

bill is an insult, to be borne only because those people consider the source from which it comes. The gentlemen from Montana and Washington Territories have characterized in appropriate language the sentiments of their Territories in respect of the treatment of them by the Congress during the past four years.

"What I object to is the attaching to this bill of the provisions for an enabling act for Washington, for Montana, and for New Mexico. The Delegate from Arizona is prepared to offer an amendment to include his Territory in the bill and to provide for its admission two years hence. There is no objection, perhaps, to an enabling act, but what is the necessity for it? As I have said, such an act has been held over and over again to be a mere matter of form, an invitation to the people of a Territory to form a State constitution and organize themselves for admission to Statehood, but such an act is in no case necessary. Every one of these Territories has a legal and constitutional right to come here at any time, with a constitution already prepared, with a State organization already perfected, and ask immediate admission to Statehood. And this is what I claim for South Dakota.

"For seven long weary years Dakota was knocking at the doors of Congress for the passage of an enabling act in her behalf. That was denied. Then her people went forward, as they had a perfect right to do, organized a government and prepared a State constitution, which has been before this House for several years. It was before the Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth, and the Fiftieth Congresses. These people are abundantly equipped for Statehood, and by all the precedents connected with the admission of twenty-five States are entitled to immediate admission.

"It will be urged by my friend from Illinois, the chairman of the Committee on Territories, that his bill, the omnibus bill,' will meet the whole question by one vote. But this is too great a question to be disposed of by a single vote, without the fullest and fairest consideration. Arizona, if entitled to be attached to this 'omnibus bill,' ought to be. Her case is certainly entitled to the fullest consideration. Wyoming desires to be embraced in this same bill. Shall these two Territories be denied consideration? Why are these Territories left out and New Mexico alone included?

"Now, if we are to have action on a case where a community equipped in all respects for Statehood comes asking, not for an enabling act, but for admission into the Union, let the case be considered alone; and then, if enabling acts are desirable for other Territories let us pass acts meeting those cases. I trust the House, when it comes to vote on this question, will reject the proposition to pass the omnibus bill,' because when we come to that the other Territories will properly urge their claims. They have a right to be heard. We have given no consideration to Wyoming, no full and satisfactory consideration to the claims of New Mexico. Washington and Montana have had but a partial hearing, although the representatives from those Territories have spoken out in condemnation of the treatment which they have received at the hands of this Democratic Congress.

"I appeal to the House and desire to urge with all the power I possess that we shall reject the proposition to load down Dakota with four or five other Territories. I am in favor of their admission as States at the earliest possible day. I would vote enabling acts for them if they desired it. But I say to those people, come up as Dakota has done; build up your Constitution, organize your State government; come to Congress and claim the constitutional right you have of admission to Statehood.

Mr. Macdonald, of Minnesota, offered a substitute for the substitute proposed by Mr. Springer, of Illinois, which provided for the admission of South Dakota under the Constitution already adopted by its people, but retained the provisions for enabling acts for other Territories. This substitute was defeated Jan. 18, by a vote of 117 yeas to 122 nays. On the same day the substitute for the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Springer was passed by a vote of 145 yeas to 98 nays. In stating the case for the measure just previous to the final vote, Mr. Springer said:

"I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the proposition which is now pending and which will soon be put upon its passage provides for the admission of five States into the Union, if the people of Dakota shall determine on the division of that Territory. If they shall not favor such division, it will bring in four States at the beginning of the next session of Congress. The advantages of this measure over the Senate bill are these, that the Senate proposition only deals with Dakota while this deals with four of the present Territories and makes possible the creation of five great States.

"If the House should pass this Senate bill it would be all the legislation which we could reasonably expect in reference to new States at this session. South Dakota has no just grounds to claim this distinction, this special favor, this partiality at our hands, while more populous today than any other proposed State; yet North Dakota, Montana, Washington, and New Mexico have each a population above the ratio of one member in the House of Representatives, and are equally entitled to admission. Let them all come in together, not only upon an equal footing with the original States, but upon an equal footing as to each other.

"It is idle to speculate upon the future politics of these new States. All predictions on this subject are worthless. No man can tell what a year will bring forth in any of the Territories of the West. In 1892 South Dakota may cast her electoral vote for the nominees of the Democratic party, and Montana and New Mexico may be found on the other side. Nor should we consult our fears in a matter of this kind. Fear not the American people-they may all be safely trusted. Those who go West to better their conditions are generally the bravest, the wisest, and the most progressive. The broad plains and lofty mountains invariably expand their ideas and liberalize their minds. The man of contracted vision in the East becomes in the West broad-gauged and full of charity for all mankind. The great West is destined in the near future to furnish the country with its profoundest jurists, its wisest philosophers, its greatest statesmen."

On Feb. 1 the Senate non-concurred in the House substitute and appointed a conference committee; Feb. 2 the House appointed a like committee; and Feb. 8 the conferrees reported that they could not come to an agreement. The Senate immediately appointed another conference committee; and Feb. 14, when the subject came up in the House, Mr. Baker, of New York, moved that the House conference committee be instructed as follows:

Resolved, That the House instruct the new conferrees to recede from the amendments to the Senate bill 185 in the following respects:

bill.

1. That the Territory of New Mexico and the proposed new State thereof may be excluded from the 2. That the bill may be so amended in conference as to provide for the admission of South Dakota by proclamation of the President, under the Sioux Falls Constitution, to be resubmitted to the people of South Dakota, with provisions for a new election of State officers, and without a new vote on the question of

division.

3. Further providing that the proposed States of North Dakota, Montana, and Washington shall be admitted on the same basis, i. e. :

(a) All of them under proclamation by the Presi

dent; or

(b) All of them by formal acts of admission. In explanation of these instructions, Mr. Baker said: "The main point of course is, as the House will see, there is eliminated from the bill

New Mexico. It is evident there can be no agreement for New Mexico under an enabling act. As to South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Washington there is no difference of opinion. As to New Mexico there is wide difference on both sides of the House. Personally, I do not have any serious objection to considering New Mexico in this bill; but the differences are so marked we have agreed it shall be brought up in a separate bill for future consideration. Therefore under this instruction the conferrees will eliminate from the bill New Mexico, and it will provide for the admission of Washington, Montana, and North Dakota by proclamation or by future legislation. As to the matter of details there will be no difficulty. If this be carried out by the House, it will give to the Union four new States before the end of the year." Mr. Cox, of New York, moved the following

substitute for these instructions which Mr. Baker accepted:

Resolved, That the House instruct the new conferrees to recede from the amendment to the Senate bill 185 in the following respects:

1. That the Territory of New Mexico and the proposed new State thereof may be excluded from the bill.

2. That the bill may be so amended in conference as to provide for the admission of South Dakota by proclamation of the President under the Sioux Falls Constitution, to be resubmitted to the people of South Dakota, with provision for a new election of State and Federal officers and without a new vote on the question of division.

3. Further providing that the proposed States of North Dakota, Montana, and Washington shall be admitted on the same basis, i. e., all of them under proclamations by the President.

And further, such matters as relate to the election of delegates and the apportionment of the districts from which members of the convention are to be elected, the date of holding conventions and the date of resubmission of the South Dakota Constitution,

and the location of the temporary seat of government in South Dakota, and such other matters as are not included in the instructions above recited, be referred to the committee of conference for their discretion.

In explanation, he said: "It would seem that on three points the Senate and House differ. The House declared for New Mexico. The Senate opposes. The House declared for a submission of the question of division of Dakota. The Senate opposes such submission. The Senate favors, with a view to prevent delay, a proclamation by the President to bring in these Territories, and a resubmission, with which the House should be satisfied. To reconcile these disagreements is the object of my substitute. On these several points it is hoped that there may be a concurrence of the two branches, so that some law or finality shall be assured during the present session. There should not be undue delay nor hasty agreement. The subject-matter calls for moderation, discretion, and dignity.

"As to the first point of difference, I am well satisfied, as I have stated in remarks heretofore, that New Mexico, if admitted as a State, would berepublican,' not merely in form, but in partisanship.

"She prepared a Constitution in 1876. The bill of admission passed both branches. It was lost through disagreement on amendments, just sion of the Territory on political grounds, whatas she may now fail of admission. Any excluever may be our party bias, is to be deprecated. It is therefore an act of great self-abnegation on the part of the Republicans of this House and of the Senate to reject New Mexico on grounds which I think are unsubstantial.

“If I am_right in my judgment, and I have good foundation for it, it would now seem impossible to make New Mexico Democratic. Her last two Legislatures were heavily Republican, and at present there are over two thirds Republican majority in each branch. The election of our friend Mr. Joseph-the Delegate-in 1884, was owing to a split in the Republican party. But the two Republican candidates had a majority over Mr. Joseph of 2,851. The same vigilant gentleman was elected in 1886 owing to a bad nomination of the Republicans. His popularity was tested by his election in 1888, and it was owing to the fact that he championed the rights of the Territory to admission.

66

These facts, in addition to other data, show,

a priori, that New Mexico will be Republican, and if the Republican Senate insists that she shall not be admitted, I would not make my insistence too emphatic against their wishes. And, therefore, since it is impossible to agree with the Senate on that point, I would yield it. I would yield it, because I would not nullify, by the failure of this bill, the good work as to the other Territories already done by both Senate and House.

"To conclude as to New Mexico, Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that in former remarks I presented all the points possible in my judgment for her admission. I know, and so advise gentlemen on both sides of the House, that New Mexico will not be admitted by the action of the Senate now. They stand on that.

As to the question of the division of Dakota, all who have taken the pains to inquire know