Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-12-06
DIVISION OF THE STATE.

Representative Vandever yesterday in
troduced bill in the House giving the
consent of Congress to a division of this |
State OF course the right of local self
government ought to carry with it, and
does, acquiescence 10 the desire of the |
people so long as it conforms to the in
tegrity of the Government. But there
must be a limit to that principle when it
comes to the carving of new States out Of
old ones. All the people of the State
should then be consulted. Since the pro-
position involves a numerical change in
the composition of the national legislature,
the consent of Congress is necessary step
TO be taken. But should it precede ex-
preston of the people most Immediately
affected? We think not. The proposition
should, therefore, emanate from an official,
orderly and calm expression Of the people
of the State to be bisected The people Of
California have made no such expression,
and we are rot aware that there is any
popular demand in that direction, 1t may
be that considerable number of our fel-
low-citizens in the south part ef the State
desire southern counties to be set off and
invested with Statehood, bat the people
Of the remaining counties have the right
to be heard also in the matter. California
cannot be fairly shorn Of e portion Of her
territory without the consent Of her peo-
pie. The REcoRD-UNIoN has repeatedly
in the last ten years expressed itself to the
fleet that State division is not necessary,
is not demanded by economic reasons, nor
essential as Il matter Of convenience. This
Journal is not so fixed in any opinion that
il is incapable of ether conviction, Tut
has heard no reason advanced for
division of the State as yet, that overbears
the strong objections to it, and which need
not be now repeated in detail 1t must
suffice for the present to say generally
that neither in population nor settled
state of society, nor in age or wealth, ha.
California attained such Importance tha
it is wise to divide her territory and i'm
pose upon the people double burden o
Statehood. The time may come for it--a
to that we are frank to say thai when i
does no prejudice will move the RECORD
UNION to oppose it.
OF course. the introduction OF the bil
referred to means that the Legislature c
next month will be asked to consent /
is improbable that it will do so withou
consulting the wishes of the people upo
that specific proposition, with all its de
tails laid bare for their consideration.
it turns out, however, that the south ha
counted noses already, and has strengt
sufficient to carry out its design now, tn
protest against clubbing this portion of tn
State with a new name will not down. n
authority outside of the people of the Sta,
affected can change its name. We war
no title for the old State that parts in tn
middle. This is California, and so it mu,
remain neither Alta California nc
Northern California, as a substitute, wi
be tolerated. If our fellow-citizens of tn
south end slough off, they can dub the
new prize as they please, bat we protest i
advance against the proposition of the bi
to call California North California
The historic associations and the attacl
ments of the good name california" sha
not be broken of, nor hereafter their re
ords be sufixed with an explanation tn;
once upon time this fair region WI
known as California