Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-12
cut up into five states. The enabling act

cut up into five states. The enabling act
| declares:
| Third-New states of convenient size,
not exceeding four in number, in addi-
| tion to the said state of Texas and having
sufficient population, may hereafter, by
| the consent of said state, be formed out
! of the territoty thereof, which shall be
! entitled to admission under the provisions
of the federal constitution.
| Is it best for the general interest to
| have large or small states? Is it best for
the people of such states as Texas, Col
orado and California to retain their pres
ent boundaries, or TO agree to Il division?
These are questions likely to be fully dis
cussed very soon. In our belief it is best
for the general interest of the Union and
| also that of the people i'll the large states
| that these should be sub-divided.
Local self-government lies at the root
of our political system. The people of
the states have multitude of their more
important affairs to regulate in each for
themselves. They can best do this in
small states, because there the interests
are more sure 10 be homogeneous and the
citizens will be more capable of effect
lively looking after them.
Texas, for Instance, has a vast space
fitted for wheat and other grains, another
region specially adapted. to the produce
ton of cotton; another of which sugar
will some day be the staple. Her wheat
farmers will have local interests in COM
mon, and different from those of the cot
ton and sugar planters. The differene
industries will create differences in popu-
lation, which will inevitably make it hard
to legislate for all to the satisfaction of
all in single vast state
Nor can the citizen of so vast state as
Texas or California, or even our own New
York, so easily pay effective attention
to the local affairs of the state.
The vigilance, the political intel
ligence, the local pride of a 81
zen of one OF these vast states esAS0t
in the nature of things be as aot3Fe Ia
state matters as those of the citizen gFFa
small commonwealth. 1t is faEyTFRore
difficult to keep the legislation, SO ex5ii
penditures, the general affairs ofEone OF
our vast states in proper check by the
people than in a smaller state.
OF course, on the other side, it may be
urged that great state like New York
has more influence in the councils of the
Union. But we take leave to doubt that.
''As New York goes so goes the Uuion'
has been true only because the country is
still politically in an abnormal condition,
with the Southern states standing SOL
idly with one party. But this is
only temporary condition, soon to
disappear. TheDemocrats of the North
begin clearly to perceive that it leads
them always to defeat; even if the Repub-
licans should fail to divide the Southern
vote its sOlidity will soon be destroyed by
new issues and diverse interests. We be-
lieve that if Texas were divided into five
states the people in these states would
have ten times the influence in the ma
tiOnal councils they can have as one
state, and that if New York could be di-
vided the parts would secure better,
cleaner local government and would have
also greater power at Washington.
1t may be said that to divide states like
Texas or California would burden their
people with more state governments and
increase their expenses. But this is 4
trifie compared with the advantages we
have suggested. The state governments
are not burdenSOme, and those of the
smaller states are least so.
1t is worth the careful consideration of
the people of great states like Texas and
California whether they would not gain
i'll many important ways by dividing
these, states. There are, we believe,
avsthOughtful New Workers convinced
tl1at IRuch would be gained to the people
q this state could it be divided into two
2ar ttTee states. 81