Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-09-15
THE pRoposED NEW STATE.

Government cannot be brought 70 the
door of every citizen. The seat Of Gov
erument must be located somewhere, and |
in State as large territOrialiy IS Califor-
MIA that seat must necessarily be remote
from some I ortion of the State. For some
time the question of dividing the State has
been agitated, without attracting as gen
era, attention as the discussion of such a
Question mi ht be supposed to elicit. The
proposition does net sppear to be received
with any degrea Of seriousness outside
a few localities nor does il meet
with universal favor by the sec
ton proposing to assume tho duties
and dignities Of independents sovereignty.
We note, hsvever, that the standard ar
gument relies upon to dissuade the southern
counties from their proposed secession re-
lates to the cost OF maintaining State
government. Ii this argument is good for
anything, It proves TOO much, and would
be as forcible II used in favor of abandon
ing Stase governments altogether. Ii we
are in search of the cheapest government,
l. could be shown that a single government
for all the territory of the United States
would cost less than the maintenance of
thirty-eight States. And yet the States
are not clamoring to surrender the right OF
local self government because it would be
cheaper to do so. If the proposition to divide
this State cannot be successfully combatted
with any better argument than the cost Of
the government proposed to be established
it is already justified. Government is the
seryitor of civilization, but to be of the
highest value it must be adapted TO the
local necessities of States and communities.
4 centralized government embracing all
the territory OF the United States, and
governed by single legislative body,
would be costly government, even ii it
could be sustained without expense to the
people. A government adapted to the
necessities Of the people, and so ordained
as TO develop the resources of the territory
subject to it, may be cheap at very high
rate of cost, while government such only
in name may be dear at the lowest
possible rate. The attempt to persuade
the people Of Southern California that they
do not want local self-government by
showing them that il will cost 800, 600 per
annum will probably fail unless it can at
the same time be shown that local State
Government is not worth that SUM per
year. The real issue appears to lie deeper
than this question of cost in dollars and
cents. If the existing State Government
denies to the people of the southern por-
ton of the State advantages attainable
under a separate State Government, then
the entire commonwealth is interested in
the establishment of the new State. That
State Government best calculated to de-
velop the resources, confer the great
est wealth, and establish the high
est civilization in Southern California
is the government to which the people of
that section are justly entitled. Such
State government might be cheap at $780,.
900 or almost any other sum per annum.
The question, when seriously considered,
is one chiefly of fact. If the existing
State Government does not perform for the
people OF Southern California all the legiti-
mate functions of government, or if their
continued annexation to the body of the
State denies to them any element of |
progress, then the highest interests of both |
sections viii be subserved by q separation. |
We have not been fortunate enough to meet |
with any adequate showing upon these
questions Of fact. We do not understand the |
nature of the complaint made against the |
existing State Government. We cannot
therefore determine whether the matters
of are susceptible of being
OF one thing We feel perfectly
assured If the laws of the State act I'M
equally upon the people of any section If |
the State Government has withheld from |
any section the exercise OF any rights &C.
corded to other sections if the State has |
the development of one section,
and obstructed the growth OF any other, q
clear showing of the facts would secure an
immediate remedy for any and all such in
stances Of wrong or injustice. The ques-
ton Of dividing the State may not be re-
garded as Of serious import, but lis agitation
proves tho existence OF either real or
fancied grievance, and in either case it de-
serves candid and serious consideration.
1s.---s-u----7,ss-s-zzzzsss
III connr NJ nrr-m. cn--..n-r