History of Dakota Territory, volume III, Part 129

Author: Kingsbury, George Washington, 1837-; Smith, George Martin, 1847-1920
Publication date: 1915
Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : S.J. Clarke Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 1146

USA > South Dakota > History of Dakota Territory, volume III > Part 129

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

An analysis of the problem of rural education in South Dakota lays bare to an expert the whole situation and reveals what is best to be done. The changes believed necessary may be learned in the following paragraphs :

(1) The farming or rural community wants and will accept a good education suited to the farm, providing it does not cost too much in time and money and does not occasion too much inconvenience. It will not cost too much nor be too inconvenient if conducted in a township consolidated or high school. What, then, should be the education suited to the farm? It may be divided into the following four groups : First-reading, writing, arithmetic, and a fair knowledge of the English language; second-continuous instruction in scientific farming from first to last during the whole scholastic period; third-geography, history, world's products, commerce, laws of health and primary medical instruction, primary legal instruction, good citizenship, form of government-state and national, busi- ness methods and systems, etc .; fourth-domestic science-including cleanliness, sanitation, disinfection, nutrition, food, digestion, cooking, dietary standards, canning, care of the household, clothing, the kitchen, the bedroom, care of chil- dren, domestic relations, good manners, social functions, politeness, how to enter- tain, preparation for marriage, ethics, eugenics, etc.

(2) Before the consolidated school or the township high school will serve the purpose it must be so elevated and be made so attractive in scholastic, social and

920

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

moral tone as to command the respect and enlist the favor and support of the farmers, their wives and their children-must be for the community a thought and social center, a delightful and instructive rallying point of the highest respectabil- ity, where all will love to assemble for the purpose of mutual improvement in mind, morals and social observances-must supply in the social world what the rural young men and women now seek in the cities, social practices and ceremonies.

(3) The rural teaching staff must be wholly changed if not revolutionized. Of the present state teachers and instructors (except those in the experiment stations and in certain departments of the Agricultural College) not one in ten is competent to instruct along the above requirements. They cannot instruct a farmer in scientific agriculture any better than they can a doctor or a lawyer, because scientific farming is even more intricate and complex than is the prac- tice of medicine or law. There should be, must be, a state superintendent of rural schools, presumably an instructor with the same knowledge as the director of the experiment station at Brookings; also a county superintendent of rural schools with the same qualifications, a graduate in progressive agriculture and a practical farmer according to modern scientific standards. Every experiment sta- tion should provide special normal training for teachers in the rural schools- training where science and practice go forward hand in hand.

(4) The present state school system should be divided into-(a) a state rural school system, and (b) a state city school system. In the same way the state school income and fund should be divided into two proportionate parts for rural and urban pupils and schools.

(5) The instruction in scientific agriculture should be based upon the reports, bulletins and other documents of the United States Department of Agriculture, the agricultural colleges and the experiment stations of all the states, numbering in all about seventy. The entire subject of scientific farming has been fully mas- tered by these three institutions or authorities, and by them alone, and has been set forth in their various documents. Three-fourths of the teachers of the state do not know that this is a fact. Suitable text books should be prepared from these documents at state expense by a special commission of experts from the experiment stations or elsewhere. The text books on scientific agriculture now in existence are wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory-are looked at with uncon- cern, if not disdain, by the farming community.

(6) The state itself must carry these changes into effect. It will not be done by the present educational authorities of the state, who are unequal to the unusual, difficult and expert task. Three-fourths of the farmers are yet unaware that all they wish to know about progressive farming is contained in the above mentioned documents. They must be educated up to the standard of modern farming meth- ods along scientific lines. Even the Legislatures are far behind and may be unwilling at present to take this vitally important step. However, the Legislature should at once provide for the rural superintendents, carry into effect the rural school consolidation, make the whole movement compulsory if necessary, estab- lish practical training schools for rural teachers at the experiment stations and the Agricultural College, and make the necessary appropriations to secure the right text books and the correct start.

921

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

(7) Just as the state now appropriates a large sum annually for each state institution, so should it appropriate each year a large sum, not less than $100,000, to strengthen, fortify, encourage, build up and make strong and efficient the town- ship and county rural school leagues. This course by the state is deserved and alone will make the whole rural school movement successful, if placed in charge of agricultural experts, who alone know what will command the respect and sup- port of the farming community.

(8) The moment all the rural children of the state are made broad and efficient scientific farmers will see the dawn of the day when every foot of soil in the state in suitable position will be cultivated, not even excepting the gumbo or the alkali tracts. This is a fact known and acknowledged by the 2,000 experts connected with the department of agriculture, the agricultural colleges and the approximate seventy experiment stations. When the majority of farmers realize this fact, the revolution will commence in earnest.

CHAPTER XXIII

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, COURTS, BAR, ETC.

The Supreme Court of Dakota Territory held its spring session at Yankton in May, 1888; there were fifty-six cases on the calendar. There were present about a dozen lawyers, among whom were Boyce & Boyce, Coughran & McMar- tin, of Minnehaha County; Bossard & Corliss, and Noyes & Noyes of Grand Forks. Several important cases were heard at this session of the court. Up to this time there were six judicial districts in Dakota Territory, but in May of that year Congress increased the number to eight. The old Fifth District was divided into the Fifth and Seventh districts, and the old Third into the Third and Eighth. The new Eighth District included Grand Forks; the new Seventh included the counties of Hughes, Hyde, Hand, Sully, Faulk, Potter, Edmunds, Walworth, McPherson and Campbell, and embraced a portion of the Sioux Indian Reserva- tion. At this time there were before the Supreme Court many cases concerning squatter rights, homestead rights, cattle rustling, stealing live stock, etc.

In July, 1888, Congress passed a law providing for the election of two addi- tional Circuit Court judges in districts Seven and Eight. There were thus in the territory one chief justice and seven associate justices. The Supreme Court was thus composed of all the district justices acting as one body. This bill pro- vided that a term of the United States District Court should be held at least once a year in each of the eight districts. This gave Dakota eight United States courts instead of four, and was found necessary owing to the rapid growth of the terri- tory. At this time the courts were wholly under the jurisdiction of the United States. It was before the organization of the state, and before the creation of the State Supreme Court and the various circuit courts.

In July, 1888, nearly all the lawyers of the territory met at Huron and passed the following preambles and resolutions :

Whereas, We deplore the inadequacy of our territorial courts to transact the business before them, as our present judiciary system is not suited to the pres- ent need of the people and justice is often denied because so long delayed, owing to the vast amount of business which our overworked judges are made to trans- act ; and,

Whereas, The people are and have too long been denied the right which they have to self government, and it is time that action was taken to secure this end. therefore,

Resolved, That we heartily favor the division of Dakota Territory and the speedy admission of the two states, and concur in and approve the action of the convention held at Huron, July 10 and 11, 1888, looking to that result.

On the same occasion the farmers and business men in convention passed similar resolutions.

922

923

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

In September, 1888, Judge Crowfoot became one of the new associate justices of Dakota Territory. During the session of the court in the winter of 1888-89 the odd question came up whether a man could be imprisoned legally for one- half of his life. The statutes of Dakota Territory provided that wherever an unsuccessful attempt was made to commit highway robbery, the penalty should be one-half of the greatest penalty for a successful commission of crime. The severest penalty for highway robbery was imprisonment for life. Under the law John Telford, in a trial at Sioux Falls, was sentenced to the penitentiary for fifteen years for an unsuccessful attempt at highway robbery. He was sentenced in 1889, but was released in 1891 because his sentence was too vague and indefinite under the law.

At an adjourned meeting of the bar of Sioux Falls in March, 1889, Melvin Grigsby presided and W. H. Wilson served as secretary. A letter was read from Judge John E. Carland confirming his resignation from the bench and thanking the bar association for its approval of his official conduct. At this meeting there were present forty-four members of the bar of the Fourth Judicial District and nine from other points. The meeting was called for the purpose of voting for a successor of Judge Carland. The informal vote stood as follows : H. H. Keith, 23; W. A. Wilkes, 10; Park Davis, 7; J. W. Jones, 3; B. G. Wright, 2; F. L. Boyce, 2; C. S. Palmer, I ; T. B. McMartin, I; E. Parliman, 1; F. R. Aikens of Canton, I. On the first formal vote the result was as follows: Keith, 43; Wilkes, 18; Jones, 3; Davis, I. For some reason not known this vote was declared illegal, because irregular, and another was taken with the following result: Keith, 32; Wilkes, 21 ; this vote was made unanimous and accordingly Mr. Keith was elected to the judgeship in place of Judge Carland, resigned, but it does not appear that he served.

In May, 1889, the Supreme Court of Dakota Territory consisting of D. W. Corson, A. G. Kellam and J. E. Bennett met at Yankton. There were present among others, the following attorneys: Tripp, Thomas, McConnell, Spencer, Templeton, and Aikens. In all over twenty lawyers attended this session and many important cases were adjudicated. In March, 1889, Frank R. Aikens was appointed judge of the Circuit Court vice Carland resigned. Mr. Aikens lived at Canton. His appointment to this position was said by the newspapers to have been a surprise to the bar of the Fourth Judicial District. He seems to have been a compromise candidate. There were fifty-seven cases before this session of the court.

In 1889 the Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional Convention recom- mended for the new state a Supreme Court of three judges, and six judicial dis- tricts to be attended by six judges. They also recommended the retention of the justice of the peace system, but opposed County Courts. They further recom- mended that the Supreme Court should meet at the state capital, and that each of the supreme judges should be elected for the term of six years. South Dakota was attached to the Eighth Judicial District of the United States Court, and was attended by a district judge, a United States attorney and a United States mar- shal. Each United States judge received a salary of $3,500, payable in four installments each year. The District Court was the successor of the old Terri- torial Supreme Court. Thus the State Circuit Courts and the United States District Courts were the successors of the Supreme Court and District Courts

924

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

of territorial times. The old files and records were continued. In 1889 provision for the election of judges of the Supreme Courts was made.

Under the constitution adopted in 1889 there were eight judicial districts. Three Supreme Court districts were established at the same time as follows: (1) All that part of the state west of the Missouri River; (2) all that part of the state east of the Missouri River and south of the Second Standard Parallel, corresponding to the northern boundary of Sanborn and Miner counties extended ; (3) all that part of the state east of the Missouri River and north of the Second Standard Parallel. The nominees of the republican party for supreme judges in 1889 were as follows: First District, Dighton Corsin; Second District, A. G. Kellam; Third District, J. E. Bennett.

Judge John E. Carland came from Michigan to North Dakota in 1877 and practiced law in that portion of the territory until 1885, when he was appointed United States district attorney for Dakota Territory. He held this position with credit until 1888, when he was appointed associate judge of the Territorial Su- preme Court, but the following year resigned the office and became a member of the constitutional convention from North Dakota. In 1889, when the terri- tory was divided into the two states, and they were admitted to the Union, he removed to Sioux Falls where he practiced actively until 1896, when he was appointed judge of the United States District Court of South Dakota.

In November, 1889, Senators Moody and Pettigrew presented the name of Judge Alonzo J. Edgerton to President Harrison and formally recommended his appointment to the position of United States district judge for South Dakota. A little later Senators Moody and Pettigrew were joined in Washington by Gov- ernor Mellette who also urged this appointment of Judge Edgerton. He brought with him similar recommendations from nearly all the state officers, judges of the State Supreme Court, many members of the State Legislature, and a dozen or more prominent citizens-an act very unusual, very strong, and almost over- whelming in its effect upon the President. On November 19th Judge Edgerton was duly appointed United States district judge for South Dakota. At the same time William B. Sterling was appointed United States district attorney for South Dakota. Soon after this event Judge Edgerton was tendered a magnificent recep- tion at Mitchell in honor and appreciation of his appointment to this important post. This reception was held irrespective of political party and was attended with music from bands and with eloquent speeches from members of the bar and from prominent citizens.

The republican candidates for the State Supreme Court, Corson, Kellam and Bennett, met after the election of October, 1889, and decided on their terms. Judge Corson became chief justice for one year. He was succeeded by Kellam of the Second District and the latter by Judge Bennett of the Third District. Cyrus J. Fry of Vermillion was appointed United States marshal in December of this year.

In December, 1889, Senator Moody made a brilliant and elaborate speech in the United States Senate in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Brewer of Kansas as a member of the United States Supreme Court. He succeeded in securing the vote of twenty-five senators against the confirmation, but Judge Brewer received enough votes in his favor and accordingly was chosen.

925

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

On February 5, 1890, the Supreme Court of South Dakota opened with a large attendance, there being present several ladies. Sheriff Guthrie called to order. Judge Corson requested that attorneys who had been formally admitted to practice in the Territorial Supreme Court should stand up and be sworn in as attorneys of the State Supreme Court. About fifty lawyers complied with this request. Judge Corson thereupon announced that the roll of attorneys admit- ted would be ready in the afternoon. C. H. Winsor, of Sioux Falls, being the oldest practicing attorney of the Territorial Supreme Court, asked the privilege of being the first to sign his name to the roll of attorneys. His request was unanimously granted. The list was signed by the following lawyers: C. H. Winsor, N. J. Cramer, H. H. Keith, C. S. Palmer, S. B. Van Buskirk, Edwin Van Cise, J. F. Dillon, F. Volrath, C. H. Wynn, T. H. Null, R. H. Brown, N. B. Reed, W. S. Jay, W. C. Fawcett, C. H. Price, C. T. Howard, G. A. Mathews, A. B. Melville, O. H. Conniff, W. B. Sterling, T. J. Walsh, E. W. Martin, R. J. Gamble, C. D. Elliott, A. W. Burtt, W. G. Rice, J. E. Mellette, N. P. Bromley, H. E. Dewey, H. R. Horner, A. B. Kittredge, S. E. Young, W. B. Kent, Thomas Sterling, C. I. Crawford, A. W. Bangs, E. C. Ericson, L. B. French and J. L. Jolley. All of the above and others had been admitted previously to practice in the Territorial Supreme Court. The following who had not been admitted to the Ter- ritorial Supreme Court were now admitted to practice in the State Supreme Court : U. S. G. Cherry, H. Hoffman, J. F. Hughes, H. S. Mouser, H. C. Hinckley, H. H. Potter, J. S. White, C. C. Upton, R. M. Bates, S. E. Whitcher, C. F. Seward, J. P. Clieever, A. N. Van Camp, C. G. Sherwood, L. C. Dennis, W. R. Thomas, Edward Brown and R. W. Stewart.

The United States District Court and United States Circuit Court met at Sioux Falls April 1, 1890. There was in attendance several hundred persons, including many witnesses. Judge Edgerton called the court to order at 10 o'clock A. M., and immediately adjourned to await the arrival of Judge Foster, of Leavenworth, Kans. There were not many cases on either docket. In the United States Circuit Court there were five cases and in the United States District Court there were six cases. The following attorneys were admitted to practice before this court on this ocasion: C. H. Winsor, C. O. Bailey, J. W. Donovan, Gottleib Engel, E. H. Hanson, J. W. Jones, H. H. Keith, A. B. Kittredge, W. H. Lyon, G. P. Nock, P. J. Rodge, T. L. Rowland, R. J. Wells, E. G. Wright, I. B. Mc- Martin, S. E. Young, A. Brizzel, all of Sioux Falls; John R. Gamble, of Yank- ton ; E. H. Dillon and D. G. Macey, of Mitchell; W. H. Ellis and H. Hoppaugh, of Castalia; H. Robertson, of Dell Rapids; W. B. Sterling, of Huron; L. E. Whitcher, of Highmore; and E. H. Wilcox, of Salem.

John Van Metre, a Sioux Indian, was admitted to practice before Judge Fuller of the Circuit Court, in May, 1890. He had been sent to the public schools of Philadelphia in 1883, and had graduated at the head of his class. Later he was sent to London, England, to attend Queen Victoria's jubilee as a specimen of the North American Indian. He read law in the office of Dillon & Homes, Pierre, for three years and then formed a partnership with a young white man and began the practice at Fort Pierre. At this time he was the only Indian lawyer among about twenty-five thousand of the Sioux Nation. He practiced later with considerable success. His excellent training and superior education enabled him to secure many cases in which Indian rights were involved. In June, 1890, the

926

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

San Francisco Alta said, "A full-blooded Sioux Indian is practicing law in South Dakota with great success. His prior training with the scalping knife is of great use in his new profession."

"The court of justice as now organized, without a provision to that effect, affords practically no protection to the rights of the citizen of small means as against the unlimited resources of the corporation. The state should furnish counsel and conduct litigation necessary to protect the citizen from the operation of the artificial person of its own creation. These officials should all be appointed until the first general election, after which they should be elected by the people." -Governor Mellette, 1891.

The State Bar Association held its annual meeting at Pierre in January, 1891. Several interesting addresses were made by state members and by prominent lawyers from abroad. The occasion ended with a splendid banquet at the Locke Hotel. The officers elected for the ensuing year were-President, Thomas Ster- ling ; vice president, E. C. Ericson ; second vice president, A. W. Burtt ; secretary, J. H. Voorhees ; treasurer, I. W. Goodner. The delegates appointed to attend the National Bar Association were C. H. Dillon, E. C. Ericson and D. Haney, the latter being a member of the Supreme Court. The retiring president delivered his annual address and made several important recommendations concerning the past history and the future prospects of the association. At the legislative ses- sion of January, 1901, the question of when to hold judicial elections throughout the state was duly considered. The plan was to elect the judges at the same time the officers of the state were chosen. It was believed that this course would save from twenty-five thousand to fifty thousand dollars annually to the state.

People often do not consider the legal profession a private concern, which it really is, just the same as banking, merchandising, practicing medicine, etc. They often unconsicously give to the legal profession the consideration, respect and dignity which should be universally accorded the courts. Many see no difference between the functions of the lawyer who is working for his fee and his partisan client and of the judge who is the administrator of justice and the head of an organization which is one of the chief departments of the Government. Accord- ingly, people generally place too much confidence and trust in lawyers and not enough in judges and courts, the judicial department of the Government, of states, of counties, of cities, and even of justice districts. The court is the servant of the public; the lawyer is the partisan warrior of the individual, who may be fighting against the very justice which the court is endeavoring to administer This is why law, as such, should not be held sacred, when it is found to be unjust. which it often is. However, lawyers often, in order to influence juries and wit- nesses, endeavor to assume the importance and dignity of the court. This also is the common practice of newspapers, ministers, physicians, and others.

In March, 1891, Judge Moody declined in advance the appointment of United States circuit judge, which was offered him. President Harrison would have appointed him to this important post, but Judge Moody signified his unwillingness to accept. Senator Pettigrew engineered this movement, but Senator Kyle re- fused to assist him in securing the post for Judge Moody. The latter refused presumably because he expected to be continued as United States senator.

Late in 1891 Senator Pettigrew formulated a plan for the creation of an exclusively Indian court, in which all cases which concerned the natives should

927

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

be tried and all cases where both plaintiff and defendant were Indians. The plan did not succeed. There were too many objections. In October, 1891, there were in the United States District Court at Sioux Falls sixty criminal cases alone, besides many others concerning live stock, Government lands, civil rights, etc.

One of the important cases tried by the Supreme Court in early times was the constitutionality of the state banking law, which permitted private banking. Judge White declared the law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upon appeal affirmed his decision. The court held that "banking aside from issuing demand notes to circulate as money is not a franchise and the Legislature cannot make it so. The Legislature had no power to deny the right to loan money or receive deposits and to confer such right or privilege on corporations. It could regulate such right and conduct, but could not prohibit." The Supreme Court really decided that because a bank was a national institution it could not therefore charge unlawful interest or practice usury. About the same time the Supreme Court reversed the decision of Judge White involving the constitutionality of the prohibition law.

In the spring of 1892 there was urgently needed in South Dakota court juris- diction over many unorganized counties west of the Missouri River where law- lessness reigned and the courts could not interfere. It was called "No Man's Land" from the standpoint of the courts. Another question was how to provide for the election of the Supreme Court judges.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Dakota Territory, volume III, Part 129

Author: Kingsbury, George Washington, 1837-; Smith, George Martin, 1847-1920 Publication date: 1915 Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : S.J. Clarke Publishing Company Number of Pages: 1146

Author: Kingsbury, George Washington, 1837-; Smith, George Martin, 1847-1920
Publication date: 1915
Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : S.J. Clarke Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 1146