Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-19
STATE DIVISION.
WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD
NOT BE DIVIDED.
Arguments Which should Convince Any
Thinking Man of the Folly of the
Proposition.

San BeInardino county, contained an edi-
torial which put several pointed questions
to VIM. II. Mills, Vice President of the
State Board of Trade, relative to his views
on the question of the division of the State
Mr.. Mills replied in letter which is
printed in the Champion of May 10th, and
which ought to convince any reasonable
man that there is absolutely no reason why
the State should be divided and that the
present agitation is injurious, ipjudicious
and untimely. Mr.. Mills says:
The suggestion at first was hardly re-
| garded as serious by the great mass of our
| people. From the very first. however, l
beg leave to claim that have felt that
sooner or later this would be question of
the first magnitude.
! In ell governments of consent it is the
first requisite of craftsmanship to bring
government as close to the people as posi-
BILE. The government of self-governing
people sustains an inseparable relation to
! the peculiar interests of different localities.
Legislation is sought with reference to the
objects which call it forth. Proper leeisla-
ton for any people is that which is speci-
fically adapted to specific conditions. Gov
| ernments OF force may maintain their
authority over wide territorial areas en-
bracing great variety of climate, soil and
productions, but governments of consent
cannot so easily do this. Physical pecul.
| iarities are the basis of diversified indus
tries, and those industries constitute the
great material interests of the people. Thus,
| physical and climatic differences result in
antagouisms of interests between different
sections of any widely extended area sought
to be brought under the regulation of a
| single civil policy. The great safety of
| republican institutions in America is the
subdivision of territory into States, and
placing in the hands of these smaller areas
| the power to enact apt legislation for the
development of their own natural re-
sources. thus more completely correlatiug
government with the interests of the peo-
pie governed. In order to secure the great
est possible repose of government under
| our political system the interests of the peo-
pie should be as nearly as possible homo
geneous. Ii State were divided by belts
| and zones of climate, producing vast d.
versity of industry, and consequently an
| tagonism OF interest, laws general in their
| character would fail to perform the highest
office of government. Such common
| wealth would be distracted by sectional
contention, and necessarily so. Legislation
| is wise only when it is aptly applied to fit
| ting conditions.
1t is the great Office of government to
| provide for the general welfare, to promote
the Industries of the people subject to it,
| and to guarantee those conditions most
| favorable to the creation of wealth and
| prosperity. A State wherein all the in
| dustrial conditions are homogeneous. will
| find no difficulty in discerning and apply
ing legislation completely suited TO the
wants of its people. Laws general in their
application are often unsuited to local d.
versities of interests. l am more than ever
convinced that the organic law of this State
is wrong in prohibiting special legislation.
The provision itself was framed in an un.
reasonable distrust of the government about
to be formed. IF there are physical differ
ences and industrial antsgonisms within
the borders OF the State of California iusti-
Tying its dismemberment, the difficulty
ought to be met and overcome by special
| legislation. Remedies need not be broader
than the evils they are designed to cure,
| and measures devised to promote the wei.
| fare of a people should be limited in their
| application to those portions of a common.
wealth wherein the conditions Justify the
wisdom OF the measure proposed. This is
illustrated by the great common doctrine
OF riparian right. The common law of any
country comprises those rules and reeula-
highest public policy.
Now, If in one portion of State an an.
| nual excess OF precipitation, annual over
flows and lnundations of fertile lands were
drawbacks to agriculture, and in another
portion OF the same State the artificial ap-
plication of water to the same land by way
| OF irrigation was the only means of avail
ing OF the fertility of its soil and the Glenn
ency of its climate. then, in the very ne
ture OF things, you would have questions
| OF public policy, or the common law in
| the two sections cutting each other at right
angles or meeting face to face with uncom-
promising antagonism. This is the illus
| tration most familiar to US, and perhaps
| the most instructive, but other sectional
differences and antagonisms are as readily
conceivable. To say that our form of gov
eminent is one of consent is equivalent of
saying 1t is government of local consent,
because we cannot imagine any considera-
bic body OF our people consenting to any
other than that government best calculated
TO promote their highest interests.
The practical question, however, to us is:
Are there industrial antagonisms between
sections OF this State which make it diff
cult, improbable or impossible for single
| State Government to confer upon the peo-
| pie OF every section the kind of govern
| ment best adapted to their needs? When
ever the Government of California fails in
! this, that portion of the people to which
such failure relates will be without the
benefits of government in its highest sense.
and the question recurs: Have there been
| such failures are there antagonisms; are
there irreconcilable differences of interest
between various sections of our State? Or:
Are there large sections of our common
wealth so completely divorced in interest
from the great body OF The State that they
| cannot hope for justice at the hands of the
State Government? Is the interest of the
majority in this State of such nature that
| the temptation to despoil the minority will
| be constantly present, and therefore con-
slant menace to the rights and interest of
that minority? Has the State Government
of California fallen short of being an ade-
| quate government for any county or group
| OF counties? Are there interests in any
section of the State languishing and suffer-
| ing or perishing for want of proper recog-
milton at the hands of this State Govern
ment? If there are, it is my opinion that
| an adequate presentation of the grievances
complained of would secure at once the
| proper remedy. II such failures exist, and
upon adequate presentation of the griev-
| ances OF any section they have not been re-
dressed, all fair-minded men would heartily
| sympathize with such a section in any
choit " sCSuic w IL Tue icSlsldtlOu duapIeQ
| to lis necessities.
| The question is, therefore, very large
| one, and should not be considered lightly.
A mere sectional prejudice is not a justifi-
| cation for the dismemberment of a State.
An honorable spirit Of emulation between
sections of State may degenerate into fan
cied grievances or supposed antagonisms
| where none in reality existed; and / have
been disposed to think tina. the sentiment
| in Southern California in favor OF dividing
this State has no higher source than this
| degenerate spirit of emulation. Against
| the proposition of division there stands the
Increased cost of government and the vast
impairment of State influence in the coun-
ellis of the nation. For half century the
three great States Of New York, Pennsvl-
vania and Ohio have governed this coun-
try. In all the centuries to come the great
States will control the national policy. To
divide this State then means to eliminate
its influence in the national councils, and
TO do this means to abdicate the sovereignty
OF the State in so far as that sovereignty
has influence in the nation. One-half Of
the State of California will never possess
| one. fourth OF the influence it now exercises
in national affairs; or. TO state this in
different form, one State of California has
/ fOt.r &h