New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-12-07
DIVTDING TEXAS.

The reported scheme for dividing Texas
seems to have no basis beyond the ambition
Of few Democratic politicians who would
have chance to be Senators or Governors If
the State could be cut up into four pieces, but
whose outlook for high honors under o.
present condition of things is not flattering.
There are two serious obstacles to the realza-
ton of such project: % the opposition OF
the people of the State itself; and CD the nos
tility of the Republican party in tie country
TO giving added power in the Senate to the
Democrats. The future division Of Texas was
contemplated in the Act admitting 1t to
the Union, but no popular movement
within the borders of the State has ever
favored any project for cutting up Its vast
territory. The people are exceedingly proud
Of the size of their State, OF the fact that 1t
was an independent Republic before it en-
tered the Union and Of its capacity for further
growth. They claim for it the title OF the
Empire State of the South, aud fancy that II
is destined in the near future to WELD po-
litical power cOunterbalancng that OF the
State of New-YOrk. Nine-tenths OF them
will not tolerate the idea Of quarter
inc their imperial domain and making OF
if four comparatively insignificant Common
wealtbs. There is now and then little lrc-
ton between the people of the northern part
of the state whose commercial centre Is
Dallas and whose trade goes northward to
ST. Loujs. and those of the sou thern portion,
whose business points are Houston ana Cal
weston. but it is of no more serious nature
than constantly arises between the mhlDi-
tants of East Tennessee and those of the
middle and western sections OF that state.
Even if the scheme for dlssccting Texas had
n strong backing from her people, 1t would
have no immediate practical force, for 1t
would meet with the solid opposition Of the
Republican party, which viii control the Gov
eminent for at least four years to come. This
opposition would not rest on partisan mo-
lives alone. The simple fact that the
census shows that Texas has only about
n million and half of inhabitants
would be sufficient argument against the
scheme. Texas and Massachusetts now rank
pretty closely together as far rs population Is
concerned. A proposition to give the people
living upon the territory OF Texas four tunes
the representation in the Senate of the United
States possessed by the inhabitants OF Massa-
chusetts would not commend itself to anybody
except a few Bourbon Democrats who imagine
the Solid South has still IA chance to shape
the destinies of the country.
A plea for division urged on the ground
of the great geographical extent of the State
would have little force. Texas makes a big
show upon the map. but fully One-half of her
territory is rs uninhabited as the Desert or
Sahara. The people who dwell in the settled
norton of the State have no difficulty IN
getting TO the capital. Marshall and Tex
arkana are less remote in pOiut of time
from Austin than are the western counties
of North Carolina from Raleigh, or the towns
on the upper st. Johns from the capital Of
Maine. The railway system of Texas is re-
markably well developed for new State
with such vast area, and it reaches
all sections that are fairly well pOpu-
lated. No section has interests so diverse
from those of the rest of the State or Is so
separated by distance or natural obstacles to
free communication as to require distinct
nohtical life. Either California, Oregon or
Tennessee could make much stronger plea for
division than Texas can now present. The
time may come when n new State can prop
erly be constructed out of northern Texas
with the addition of a portion of the Indian
Territory, with the capital at Dallas; and
possibly another may be made of the terri
tory between the Colorado River and the Rio
Grande, with the capital at San Antonio but
that time will not come during the next de-
cade