Los Angeles herald., 1891-01-26
GOVERNOR HILLS LAST ANNUAL MES
SAGE-AN ELOQUENT ARGUMENT.

winch ne calls MS last annual mes
sage" Governor Hill states some strik-
ing facts. The great state OF New York
only owes $4,964, ,3O4.S7, mainly on ac-
count of the commemorative magnif-
icent system of canals. The estimated
receipts of the empire state for the cur
rent fiscal year foot up $S,619, ,74S.17,
which will defray the expenses and
leave large surplus for the reduction
of the debt. The governor reduced the
outlays for the past year 81 100000 by a
resolute series of vetoes-what a con-
trast to the record of the late lamented
Waterman, OF happy memory, of this
state? The money appropriated by the
last legislature of California under
Waterman's regime amounted for two
years to more than twelve million dol
lars. In other words, the citizen of
California is obliged to pay fraction
over $4 to maintain his state govern
ment for every dollar paid by citizen
of New York. The wearied taxpayer
may well ask, "Why is this thus?"
When Governor Hill was preparing
his message the shadow of the maIign
'force bill" was projected over con-
gress. No one has argued against the
pernicious measure with more cogency
and eloquence than he. We cannot
forbear repeating this portion of his
message in full. We quote:
There is pending in the federal con-
gress measure popularity designated
with great accuracy as the "fcrce BILL"
which is designed to extend federal con-
troll oyer congressional elections.
The terms 6f this proposed law 1 need
not describe to you; they are familiar
to the general public, because they were
widely discussed in the recent political
campaign, and formed one of the princi-
pal issues in the election. By an over
whelming majority the people decided
against the measure. In our own state
this emphatic protest was recorded in a
majority of 10000 votes against the can
didates who ostensibly were committed
to the bills support. Yet, in spite of
this indignant expression of adverse
popular opinion, the friends of the
measure are still urging it's enactment,
and pressing legislative business in the
United States senate is being ignored
while, under spur of partisan goad, an
effort is making to rush through this
revolutionary measure.
In the defeat of that effort the state of
New York and every other state in the
union has a vital interest. Ostensibly
to promote pure elections, the measure
in reality is an unworthy scheme to per-
petuate partisan control. 1t is danger
Gus step in the direction Of centralized
government. 1t is un-American and
revolutionary. 1t is an unwarranted
usurpation of the rights and privileges
OF states. 1t authorizes the employment
of an army OF federal officers and the ex-
penditure of many millions Of dollars.
1t practically annuls many state laws,
and places the determination of federal
elections absolutely in the hands of par
tisan officers. The effect of its enact
ment and enforcement must inevitably
be to infringe the sacred right of repre-
sentation, to build up powerful parti-
san machine dangerous at all times to
the free expression Unpopular sentiment,
to turn over the control of government
to an oligarchy of office-holders, to ex-
cite conflict between state and federal
authority, and to break down respect for
law and reverence for our political in
stitutions among the ignorant. In the
south it would be the means of arousing
race prejudices which would threaten
the order and prosperity of those COM
munities, and rekindle the dying embers
Of sectionalsm.
Against legislation 30 hostile to the
country's welfare, so subversive of its
institutions, SO foreboding to it's peace
and happiness, let this state, through
the legislature now assembled, vigor-
ously assert its opposition. For hun
dred years we have regulated our own
congressional elections; is there any
reason why we should not continue to
regulate them? When defects have ap-
peared in our election laws, whereby
abuses prevailed, our legislatures have
corrected them, SO that today we have
an election law which men of all parties
pronounce nearly perfect for securing
the purity of the ballot. To certain
extent, the proposed federal legislation
would destroy the safeguards of
state law, and offer opportunities
for the intimidation and debauch-
cry of voters. In other states
the same conditions prevail. so that the
plea OF pure elections put forward in be-
half OF the force bill is shown to be false,
and the measure finds no genuine sup
port save as q partisan device. Many
partisan acts in our country's history