The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-17
SENATOR MrLLEE.
Hs Talks California Politics
20 a Chicago Reporter.

TO a Chicago Repeater.
Chicago. 16.-United States Sena-
, tor John F. Miller, of California, ar
J rived in the city yesterday evening
from the east, on his way home with
! his family, not having been in Cali
fOrnia since November, when he
left to attend the session of the Sen
ate. He left at noon to day. A re-
porter called on the Senator and had
an interesting talk on California
politics. / have been away so long,
said the Senator, that l do not know
as | can tell you anything of general
interest. We have state election,
electing governor, state officers,
members OF the two houses, and two
cOngTessmen-at large. The legisla-
tuTe failed to redistrict the state,
and the two new representatives we
have to elect st large.
What are the prospects for the
election?
Well, that is rather hard to say.
California, as you know, is very
close. was defeated for electOr in
1 1874 by only seventy-four majority.
AT present it is hard to give any
prophecy. The First district, where
Rosecrans is running, is democratic,
but republicans have good candi-
date, and the district may be called
doubtful. The Second district
(Page's) is overwhelmingly republi-
can, and he ought to come in with
5000 majority. The state was dis
tricted in that way, The Third dis
trict is largely democratic, and the
Fourth is doubtful. PaehecO has
not been renOminated, but re-
publicanS have put up a
| Mr.. Woods. a good candidate.
The result there also is doubtful.
Although there are two republican
| districts you see there is one DEM
ocTatic and one republican district,
and two doubtful. The Congress-
men elected ct large will naturally
90 with the state ticket, which is
| liable to go either way.
How is the legislature?
/ was elected by majority of
IS on joint ballot. There are 40
senators to be elected now, who
viii hold over and have . voice in
! the election of the next United
! States Senator. OF course there is
q fight over these on the senatorial
! question. The asSemblymen viii
be elected from their districts on
ipurely party issues. / believe the
republicans viii have d majority.
Then the republicans VIII DO the
lrediStricting?
/ The indications point that way.
The state at present is Gistricted IN
the interests of democrats. Whether
lit only happened so or was done
purpOSely I cannot say.
Is prohibition cutting much Of
figure in California politics?
! Well, there is some little question
over the Sunday law. There is no
third party in this question ON the
state ticket, and what fight there is
/ is being made on local candidates.
l don't think it will amount to
much. Sunday is as we'll observed
In California as anywhere else, and
I cannot see how the question can
amount to much. Both parties
have touched upon it, and il will
cut into both about evenly.
Is your Chinese bill working satis-
factOrily?
! It seems to be. The object was to
| keep out Chinese labor, and it is do
ing that. OF course some of the
people are still arguing against en-
ploying Chinese labor, but the i'm
pOrtation Of Chinese has ceased,
and the evil will decrease.
Are republicans getting any
| benefit from having passed the bill!
Well it is not doing US any harm.
Both sides claim the credit for the
measure. l introduced the bill, and
my colleague, Senator Farley, had
not introduced a bill in spite Of the
fact that he rad been in the Senate
two years. [ got the bill introduced
in the House by Congressman Page,
one Of the California representa-
tiyes, and myself pushed it in the
| Senate. Then / modified it to suit
| the President, and it was passed by
a republican Congress. We point
| to these facts, but democrats say it
could not have been passed without
democratic votes. 1t at least does
not hurt rs, if it is not q positive
benefit.
Does the river and harbOT bin en-
ter into the eompaign at all?
I hardly think it does. In fact l
believe our people are satisfied with
it. The Pacific Coast got about
100000 out Of the $19,000,O0O,
and we have about l, 100000 people.
There is a good deal of selfishness
in this thing, as in all others. Other
sections Of the country oppose 1t
because it does not benefit them.
I know that in our section improve
ments are needed, and l presume
some IN other sections. l have only
the reports Of the engineers, and
IL presume they are correct
IL think, myself, we are
spending too much money! but still
| it seems as if this money Wo1ld be
| iudiciously expended. I know diff
ferent localities often did nOtsre-
ceive half what the engineers called
| for. Then again the items for the
Mississippi improvements amount
| inc to S5,0O0,OO0; the Potomac
flats and others were not
properly in this bill. They were
outside matters. On the whole I
can saw that I don't regret having
voted for this bill and would vote