The record-union., 1891-05-11
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
Our contemporary, the Oakland I1i6-
U2ee says that the constitutional argu-
ment in favor of a collective exhibit
proves too much. We beg leave respect
fully to differ. The Legislature of Cali
fornia made an appropriation of money
for the purpose of constructing buildings
and collecting and maintaining an ex-
hibit. These are the specific terms of the
law itself Now while the exhibit will
be within the grounds and under the
control of the National Commissioners,
the exhibit itself, after permission is
given to make it there, will be under the
control of the Commissioners for Califor-
mia. The State of California might choose
to make an exhibition in Salt Lake City,
but suppose that a license were obtained
from the city of Salt Lake to make an eX-
hibit on one of its plazas by the Commits
sioners of California it would not then
follow'that the exhibit itself was not un-
der the exclusive management and con-
troll of the State as a State institution. A
collective or unified exhibit Of the pro-
ducts of California in building erected
onrgrounds within Jackson Park, which
which is simply part of the city of Chi
cago for the time being devoted to the
holding of the national exhibition, can be
distinctly and exclusively under the
State of California; but California exhib-
its placed in buildings erected by the
National Commission are necessarily un-
der the control of the National Commits
sion, and California and its Commission
ers lose control all together. The plain
provisions of the Constitution, prohibit
ing appropriations of money for any in
stitution not under the exclusive control
and management of the State as State
institution, would apply distinctly to an
exhibit placed in the general buildings of
the exhibit, because it would not be un-
der the control of the State of California
asa State institution; while if permission
from the National Commissioners to
make an exhibit within Jackson Park at
Chicago We're once obtained, the exhibi-
ton itself would be under the exclusive
control of the State of California. This
appears to be so plain as not to admit of
controversy.
The appointment of Maxwell to the
headship of the Horticultural Depart
ment has placed California in a very un-
enviable position. Mr.. Maxwell is not a
horticulturist, is not specially intelligent
on the subject, and his appointment was
gross outrage on exhibitors from all
parts of the world. California, claiming
to beth first horticultural State in the
Union, owed it to the rest of the world to
present the, name Of a horticulturist for
the position. The appointment of Max
welisan unquestionable blunder, ,and the
State ought to repudiate it. It cannot
do so better than by placing its own hor-
ticultural exhibition in a separate
building.
case, however, remains to be noted. The
National Commissioners refused sex-
nibitors, whose exhibitions are pre-
sented in unified State exhibits, the right
to compete for premiums. The question
arises, who gets the premium money
when an exhibitor takes a premium ?
Who gets the benefit of the advertising
should'a manufacturer present an article
for competition? The answer necessarily
is-the exhibitor, not the State. An ex-
hibit therefore made in departments
becomes simply a subsidy to exhibitors
and nothing more. A is manufacturer
and desires to send some article of manu-
facture to the Worlds Exposition to
compete in department. How is the
State to assist him in advertising his
wares in this way-by paying him to go?
Then suppose he gets a premium;
who gets it? If the exhibit made
by him is State exhibit, what
right has he to the premium ?
If it confers upon him an advertising.ad-
vantage, what right has he TO secure that
advantage through the treasury of the
State of California? In the light of these
considerations, it becomes clear that an
exhibit of products of California in de-
partments viii simply create scramble
among exhibitors for an undue proper
ton of the appropriation made by the
Legislature. Suppose ten firms desire to
manufacture engines and send them to
Chicago, by what right will the State
Commissioners deny them the privilege
of doing SO? Suppose there are twenty,
still the articles offered must be accepted.
Thus, when the States money comes to