Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-17
States Which Have Been
Dismembered.
A Number of Examples in the
Past.
The National Constitution Provides
for Such Measures.
New York, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina and Connecticut Have
Been Cut Up-How New
States Were Made.


Before reeuming the argument on the
legality of state division, it will be
necessary to notice quibble that is
urged by its opponents. They say in
substance that section of article of
the federal constitution forbids state
division, for it says: "No new state
shall be formed or erected within the
jurisdiction of any other state" 1t is
true that it does say so, but it is also
true that it says more than that. The
sentence does not end with the word
''state." What bothers the opponents
of state division is that semicolon, in
stead OF a period, follows the word
s'state." If a period were there, it
would indeed be fatal to state division.
The full sentence is as follows: New
states may be admitted by the congress
into this union; but no new state shall
be formed or erected within the juris-
diction of any other state; MOI
any state be formed by the junction
of two or more states, or parts of states,
without the consent of the Legislatures
concerned as we'll as the congress-"
Any grammatical analysis of this para
graph will evolve only one thought or
idea as follows: No new state shall be
formed within the jurisdiction of any
other state, either by the junction of
two states or of parts of states, without
the consent of the legislatures concerned
as well as of the congress. The fact of
the matter is that the paragraph is
punctuared too strongly; comma
would have sufficed for a semicolon.
1t should either have been a comma or a
period. We know by the discussions of
the Philadelphia convention that in
writing the paragraph they designed to
provide for the "dismembering of the
large states," and, therefore, they did
not intend to place period there.
Therefore, what follows the semicolon
is the predicate, and from this conclu-
sion there is no escape.
The trainers of the constitution pro-
vided in that instrument that the "rati-
fication OF the conventions of nine states
shall be sufficient for the establishment
OF this constitution between the states
so ratifying them"
The first state to ratify was Delaware.
on December Z, 1857. The ninth state
was New Hampshire, on June 81, 1888,
and on September 13, 1888, without
waiting for North Carolina or
Rhode Island, the old congress,
by resolution, declared the con-
stitution ratified, and thereupon the
national constitution became of effect,
and the law providing for the ''dismem-
bering of large states" as stated by its
author, went into force. Ii, now, it
should be found that states have been
divided under this law, and if it has
been passed upon by the supreme court
OF the United States, the question is
settled forever. Such are the facts of
the case. Now for details OF the different
state divisions, which have been made
under and by virtue of the constitution
of the United States, and confirmed by
she decisions of the supreme tribunals
OF the land.
The first state to be divided was New
York, which was the eleventh state to
ratify the federal constitution, which il
did on July 26, 1853. By virtue of the
charter granted March IL, 1864, by
King Charles ii to his brother
the duke of York, and which
had been renewed in 1874. tn,
state of New York claimed all the ter
rtory from the east side of the Con
necticut river to the east side of Della
ware bay. The division was commenced
ifl. l771, before the adoption of the ma
xional constitution, but was not con
sumated till 1871, three years after the
national constitution was ratified. The
case OF Vermont was peculiar, and evoked
mo little debate when the Morris eubsti-
tute was under consideration, and led to
some important amendments by the au
thor himself (Morris) in that most
notable proposition. For twenty years
Vermont had been an independent
republic. Her territory was claimed
both by New York and New Hampshire
Declaring herself an independent state
in 1771, Vermont framed her constitu-
tion in 1777, and, although she applied
for admission to colonial league, she
was successfully resisted by New
York on account of the latter's
elaim on her territory. Even the old
continental congress pledged its faith to
Vermont in it's struggle for independ-
ence. and DIR. johnson procured an
amendment of the Morris substitute on
the same line. Vermont, like the
Roman captain at Jerusalem, obtained
her freedom with great sum. In 1890
ahe paid New York the sum OF $50, 600
to relinquish all claim over her terri
tOrV, ana the latIer State, ny Ill dct VI
Nav 6, 1890, consented to the separation
of Vermont, which congress recognized
xgie next year, and admitted her to the
nnion in l79l. All this was done agree
ahlv to the provisions of section 3 OF
article Nv OF the national constitution,
which. indeed, as shown by Governeur
Morris and Dr. Johnson, was framed Tor
that very purpose.
The next state divisions were those Of
MARYLAND and Virginia. Owing to sec
tional iealousies concerning the location
Of the national capital, congress was
comnelled to have exclusive Jurisdiction
of her own district, and, accordingly
crowded in paragraph IL, section 8. o.
art;cle /. of the national constitution
Cor such a district not to exceed ter
miles square, as might be ceded by par
ticular states. u:
Accordingly, in 1888, Maryland di
v;ded from herself the county OF Wash
motion. with an area of sixty-four square
miles. The next year Virginia divided
from herself the county of Alexandria
having an area of thirty-six square
ra;les' for the same purpose. Congres
scented the divisions Of Maryland ant
v1::,s;o in 1900. and in 1901 assumed