Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-12
TEXAS WILL NOT DIVIDE.
1t Could be Split up Into Five States but
Texans are Unwilling to Do 1t.
Plaintive Appeal and Useless One to the
Coming Political Giant of the Union
New York Empire Must Go.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7.-Since it has
been proposed TO divide California into
two states and admit Dakota territory as
two states, Democratic statesmen have
been wondering if there is any way
whereby their party might gain or secure
hold upon the national legislation by the
creation of sovereign states that would be
assuredly Democratic. All eyes naturally
turned toward Texas, with its immense
area of territory and ever increasing pop
ulation, which the next census is ex-
pected to show has nearly if not quite
S,0O0,O people.
Though it has been forgotten, the terms
on which the Lone Star republic was to
be admitted.into the Union, which terms
were accepted by the convention of 1915,
was that Estates of convenient size not
exceeding four in number in addition to
the said state of Texas, and having suffi-
Gent. population, may hereafter, by the
consent of the said state, be formed out
of the territory thereof, which shall be
entitled to admission under the provisions
of the federal constitution.
There it is, just As it was enacted in n
joint resolution passed by the Twenty
eighth congress, dated March ! , 1915,
and embodied also in the ordinance passed
by the Texas convention accepting the
terms proposed and guaranteed by the
United States.
The good faith of the United States is
pledged whenever the people of the state
ask for the redivision of Texas into five
: II.
ditions are now ripe for such sub division
There is sufficient population for five dis
tinct states, with ten senators and at
least twenty congressman. But there is
one obstacle to carrying out the provis-
iOnrOf the law. The people of the state
do not want the territory divided, and
probably never will. l talked with mem
bers of the Texas delegation to-day and
they all said it would be impossible to get
one man i'll a hundred to say he desired
the subdivision of the territory.
AN EMPIRE IN ITSELF.
Congressman Sayers, who represents
the Tenth district, said that Texas is an
empire in itself. Its resources are Him
liable, and if by dividing it could control
the national legislature in both houses
for the next fifty years the people would
not agree to it. There is not a child i'll
the state that does not know of the ex-
listing right to be made into more states,
but sentiment with everybody is against it,
"Our legislation, since the war at
least, he said, has been on the plan
of perpetual unity, the location of all our
asylums and charitable Institutions, the
provision made for the distribution of the
school fund, the railroad systems
and every other system and every
other feature of growth and prosperity has
been projected on the plan of Texas re-
manning the empire state of the South.
Instead of giving way to smaller states
the ambition of Texas is to have more
territory, and it would gladly take care
of that to the west of the Rio Grande
You can say that Il division. of the state is
not tc DO thought of now or hereafter -
Congressman Lanham, who represents
the border district and lives III. FL. .Paso.
says: "The memoirs of the old republic
of Texas are too precious to be scatteraotTl
There is. san Jacinto, the Alamo and Go
lad. They are GEAR to. the Hhearts of
Texans and populaT opinion would never
consent toihaye them under any other
name than thai of old Texas. We are prusd ]
of that name, We are proud of the sfAtS
and we are; proud of our pride. ~
couldn It get Il coFpoTal's guard to ,f6rCss
NLiC pa ~ IlN-C WIZ Ii NN&Slt
Us i'll 1915. We expect to be the New
York of the South in 1909 and haze eduaI1
representatives. III the Hh6use with the !
great Empire State of the North. - ]
AGAINST DIVISION.
Congressman KilgOTe wifo was formerA |
ly president of the Texas senate, said: I
''Ihe sentiment of the state is utterly |
against dissolution of its present form |
of state government. The entire rail-
road system has been built on the unity
of the territory as one state and the
people are not disposed to ask for a
change. 1t would be as much as a mans
political, if not his physical, existence is !
worth to talk about making new states]
out of Texas.
Congressman Martin said: ''The peos
pie alone and only the people can crsate \
a sentiment in favor of the division of thsT
territory of Texas into more states RsfiS :
ticians could not control it. Twenty
years ago there was some agitation of the
subject, but it died out. Since then there
has been no desire shown to revive the
topic. Much as we want Democratic
senators, and we are nearly dead for
them, we would not have them mt the
cost of sacrificing the unity of our state. ="
Judge Moore and other members of the
said emphatically: ''The
is not Il popular one, and
there is not the slightest idea it will ever
be done. No possible political advantage
would have the least influence in creating
a sentiment favorable to division into
four more states. 1t might seem to worry
the Republicans, but that is all that will
ever come of the right guaranteed when
the Texan republic came into the
Cnion.''
SMALL STATES OR LARGE?
Why the people of a territory should
want TO turn it into n state is as queer a