Los Angeles herald., 1891-03-31
A QUIBBLE.

Our contemporary, the HERALD, now
takes upthe state division question. 1t
says:
The HERALD does not claim that the con-
ditions for an agitation for state division exist
Very good That is just what the
Times claims. Let US, therefore, wait
until the conditions exist before we
commence to agitate the question. Los
Angeles Times.
This is the ad captand,tm way OF treat
ing question, and it is very much after
the fashion in vogue with our contem-
porary. We treated at some length an
editorial which had appeared in the
Times, and which had claimed that
state division was dead issue because
it would be too expensive to run state
government of our own. The HERALD
presented copious statistics that showed
that we could easily sustain the charges
for the maintenance of such a govern
ment, and have money left over from the
taxes we contribute to uphold the present
state organization. The Times does not
attempt to answer this phase of the
question, nor does it seek to reply to the
just argument that no number of trim
ming politicians have the right to pledge
this section to inaction ON so vital
question as state division. The admis-
sion of the HERALD that the con-
ditions of an agitation for Atate division
do not exist just now by MP means i'm
plies that they may not arise at
any time. In fact, the continuous and
studied ignoring OF this section in the
distribution of senatorial honors. the
appalling yearly deportation of coin to
Sacramento that is never seen again in
this section, and the immense benefits
that a state government of our own
would be to this section, form conditions
for agitation that might be famed into
flame at any time. If we are not mis-
taken, the Times itself has figured in
the past as an advocate OF separation,
as has nearly every journal published
south Of the 1ehaclses,t lss,ai- mountains. The
HERALD begs to pooh-pooh the idea That
any of Governor Markham 6 friends have
it in their power to bargain away the
right of our people to get up lively agi-
tation on state division whenever it
shall please them to do so. The difficult
ties in the way are great but they. are
not insuperable. The government of
the United States has recognized the
principle of state division in theory by
providing, in the enabling act for the
admission of Texas, that that great
commonwealth might be cut up into
four states whenever her people should
so elect. In practice, the general gov
ernment also confirmed its attitude by
forming the state of West Virginia out of
the mother of states and statesmen.
This last was procedure scarcely de-
fensible on any ground save the necessi-
ties of war. But the two precedents es-
top the national government from in
terposing any objection to the creation
of state of South California. 1t is true
that the constitution of the United
States forbids the formation of new
state out of an old one without the con-
sent Of the latter. In this fact we en-
counter the only real difficulty. But
the state of California once gave its con-
sent to the southern counties to form a
new state, and it may do SO again if the
matter is handled skillfully.
The HERALD will not permit the rights
of the people of this section to be
whistled down the wind. The obliga-
tions of cabal of bargaining Republi-
can politicians in no shape or manner
bind the people of the southern coun-
ties. 1t has always been in the power
of the northern and central counties to
postpone agitation for state division
indefinitely by paying their just share
OF the state taxes. This they have not
chosen to do, and the omission is
standing cause for agitation, and ought
to be.