Los Angeles herald., 1891-03-29
STATE DIVISION.
Statistical and Other Lights Upon Ger
tain Reflections of Contemporary.

Statistical and Other Lights Upon Ger
tain Reflections of Contemporary.
EDITORS HERALD: A Los Angeles
morning paper, (not the HERALD or the
JournaD, today, editorially, for the first
time openly begins its fight against
state division. The paper itself states
but one point, namely, that of expense.
In quoting, however, from the San
Diego papers, two other points are
noticed, namely, the alleged promise OF
Southern California, in the last guber-
material campaign, to forever drop the
question; and that it is dead issue.
AS to the third and last point, it may
quickly be dismissed by brief reference
e to the fact thst ov@r ainee the eettlemeuv
of California by the Aryan race. there
have always been political disturbances
between the northern and southern
sections, growing out of their physical
differences. AS long as cause produces
effect, it is to be presumed that these
disturbances will continue until they
are politically separated. Irrigation,
still an unsettled question, is a notable
matter in point. Hence state division
never has been and never can be dead
issue.
The second point is laughable. A set
of cowardly professional politicians,
who in no sense represent the intellect
or money of Southern California. fell
down before the charge of northern
California that they favored state divi-
sion. The charge was true; even no less
person than Governor Markham him
self, through the Los Angeles Furniture
company, of which he is president,
which authorized the call OF mass
meeting in December, 1888, to indorse
Congressman Vandever's bill to divide
the state, which it did. OF course, dur
ing the campaign, Governor Markham
openly denied this, but the HERALD's
files itself bear evidence of its truth.
Southern California made no such
promise, or treaty, as claimed by the
San Diego Union. The Republicans did
not even require any such pledge of its
candidates. The Democrats had an
anti-state division plank, but many
leading Democrats here assured me it
was only Pickwickian. The last cam
paign did one good thing; and that is it
clearly proved that state division was
not solely supported by politicians, as
the north had falsely charged.
As to the first point, that OF expense,
it is worthy of serious discussion.
First, Southern California proper, in
Guiding the territory south of the Te-
hachepi mountains, and being the coun-
ties OF Inyo. San Bernardino, San Diego,
Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura and
parts of Santa Barbara and Kern coun-
ties, embraces an area of about 10000
square miles. This is greater area than
that of twenty-three other states.
The population OF Southern California
for 1890, by the United States census,
was 204, 1863, which is a greater number
than that of five other states.
The official report of the state con-
troller of California for 1889 shows a
total value of all taxable property of
Sill ,590,979 The state rate of taxa
tion that year was $.722 on the 500.
The same report shows that the total
value of all taxable property in South
ern California for that year was $780,
241 All. Suppose now that in 1889
Southern California had been an inde-
pendent state, her total receipts as
state would have then been the princely
sum of 81 1913, ,O43, at the high rate of
$.722. Would that amount have been
sufficient to have run a state govern
ment that year? That depends, OF
course, whether it would have been an
economical or extravagant government.
But the fact is plain that it was greater
amount than was required to run eigh-
teen other states for that same year. See
New York World Almanac for 1891. page
250.
The state government of Alabama for
1889, with population of 1,5l3,017,
cost $701, 100, which was raised on rate
of 45 cents.
Arkansas, with a population OF 1, ,12S,-
179, cost $64l ,548, on rate of 30 cents.
Delaware, with population of 1885,
.493, cost $120,02S.
Florida, with population OF 391 ,422,
cost 1899, 400, ON rate. of 80 cents.
Mississippi, with population of
l,2S9,600, cost $900,63 on rate Of 40
cents.
New Hampshire, with population Of
376,53O, cost $4SS, 1929, on a rate of 20
cents.
North Carolina, with population