Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-12-08
STATE DIVISION.
Opinions of Various People
on the Subject.
A MASS MEETING TONIGHT.
A Movement to Divide California
According to the Interests
of the Sections.

The question of the division OF the
State of California has been a common
topic of conversation on the streets for
the last two days. While the bill pro.
posed by General Vandever is generally
condemned because of its Impractical
bility, the idea of division appears to
have taken very firm hold on the COM
muni:y. A number of gentlemen have
taken the matter in hand, and have issued
the following call for meeting to take
place this evening to forward the effort
for division:
A mass meeting to take into consider.
alton the movement for the division Of
the State and the organization of the
new State of Southern California will be
held in Hazards Pavilion this evening
at 7:30 O'Clock. Let every citizen be
present.
J. P. Widney, E. w. Jones, Geo. b.
Bonebrake, E. f. Spence, L. j. Rose,
Albert M. Stephens, w. F. Fitzgerald,
Geo. Il. Smith, A. Glassell, G. E. Thorn,
John G. Downey, H. T. Hazard, John E.
Platter, Harper & Reynolds Co., D. Free
man, r. M. Widney, Chas. Maclay, j. S.
Slauson, Hellman, Haas & Co. H. 7.
Payne. s. W. Luitwiler, K. Cohn & Co.,
Chas. Silent, b. Jevne, n. H. Boyce,
John 1. Redick, H. Sinsabaugh, G. J.
Griffith, B. F. Coulter, James J. Ayers,
Hervey Lindley, H. G. Wilmer, Jonn NJ
Davies, Los Angeles Furniture Company,
Eugene Germain, E. L. Stern, L. Loeb,
W. H. Workman, John F. Humphreys,
J. .Kuhrts, K. F. Del Vale, Brown & Fos-
ter Hardware Co., A. D. Childress, T.
Z. Rowan, Jose Il. Estudillo.
A reporter of the HERALD yesterday
called upon a number of gentlemen to
inquire their views upon the question,
and also solicited expressions of opinion
from such men Of prominence as he
happened to meet upon the street. 1t
will be seen that while a majority Of
them favored the division. there were
still not wanting number who preferred
to see the State remain intact.
Judge DuPuy, District Attorney for
Los Angeles county, spoke in a very
emphatic way in favor of the division.
II have had enough experience at meet
ings in different parts of the State to
know what the feeling in the north is.
They would like very we'll to have us de.
pendent upon them as we are now. We
are paying more than our share of the
taxes and get no corresponding benefits
We shall never be able 20 have the in
huence that we desire in the Nations
councils until we are separated"
Major G. w. Arbuckle said II am
not in favor of the idea. / re-
gard California as essentially a solitaire.
Two little things are not always equal to
one big one, and believe that the result
of the division would be loss of power
on the whole. Look at the case of the
German Confederation. Contrast its po-
sition in the nations of Europe during
the time when it was cut up into small
States with what it is now as a united
country. believe in the old name of
California, and have no ambition to be
put down as South Californian"
IL have not thought much about the
matter" said Sheriff Kays, ''and am not
much inclined to give an opinion. Still
l have always been in favor of division.
If put to vote l am very doubtful
whether it would carry throughout the
State, as my experience with the north
ern sentiment has led me to think that
they are very we'll satisfied with the ex-
isting arrangement"
r. W. Poindexter, of Byram & Poin-
dexter, thought that the matter was
rather premature. "For my part" said
he, "I have lived in the State good
many years and know both sections
pretty we'll. The old name of California
has good deal of force with me. 1t
takes the whole section to make up the
State as it exists in our thoughts and
memories. Nevertheless there are res
sons enough why the division should be
made some time, when ever there is
enough to make up two strong States"
William Pridham, the Assistant Super
intendent of Wells Fargo & Co., expressed
himself as very heartily in favor of the
division. 81 have always looked forward
to euch a consumation," said he, 1--WE
have been paying tribute to the northern
part Of the State quite long enough-and
that just what it amounts to. There is
not an identity between the the two parts
of the State they are on the contrary
quite diverse. l hope to see the matter
pushed"
City Justice A. J. King said: "The
idea is of course an old one to those of
us who have been living long time in
this part OF the State, nevertheless am
inclined to think that it is still rather
premature. Such change could only
be brought about as the result of very
decided necessity which, as yet, cannot
be shown to exist. If put to vote it
might carry in the South, but would
probably be overruled in the North.
There is really not population enough
here to form separate State as yet, and
it would simply add one more to the list
of small States who upset the legitimate
balance of power in the Senate as it was
planned by the Constitution. A division
would be plainly to the advantage of the
South and for that reason might favor
it but hardly on any other, at least not
just at present"
81 am in favor OF the division of the
State" said Mr.. Sidney Lacey, "and am
inclined 10 think it would carry if put to
a vote, for the reason that it would really
benefit both sections. The line between
the two parts would have to be drawn,
how ever, with view to separating dis.
tinct interiors, rather than in accorda ance
with the plans of politicians. 1 do not
believe that we will ever have the in
huence that we deserve and need in
National affairs until we are a distinct
State"
M. L. Wicks said: "No; 1 oppose the
plan, and 1 do 80 on financial grounds.
The State is now practically free from
debt, as it possesses assets to cover out
standing liabilities. One of the first
things this new State of South California
would be compelled to do would be to
assume a debt of several millions for
= -, c>,I t