Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-10
1t Is Legal Under the Federal
Constitution.
Section Three Article Four
Authorizes Such Action.
How This Section Came to Be Written
and It's Intent.
1t Holds to the idea of Dism emb erm emit
ofLarge States-GouverneurM Morris
Its Author-Oiscussfon ON
Its Adoption.
[BY B. A. CECIL STEPHENS x.I

Is state division legal? Or, do the
laws of the nation or state permit OF
prohibit the division of a state? All
laws in this country are based upon the
will of the people. 1t was the people o.
the United States and the people of the
state of California who respectively or.
dained the national and state constitu
tions. (See the preambles of those in
struments.) If the people wish to di
vide state, they have the unquestion
able right to do 30, even to the extent O.
removing all legal barriers thereto.
In the matter of the national division
the people strongly decided in the mega
tive, and it is not likely from their pres
ent temper that the question will evel
again be opened.
| As regards to state division, however
it is different proposition, for ther'
have been no less than eleven instances
of state division in the history of thu
United States. Provision was made fol
four more, in the case of Texas, and the
sixteenth, the new territoryof Colorado
was strangled after its separation from
the state of California was consummat
ed. (See the language ofthe California
act OF 1859.) Further on these in
stances of state division will be consid-
cred in detail.
The fret question to be considered is,
Is state division legal? Ii it can be
clearly shown to be according to law and
the decisions of the highest courts, then
there can be no doubt but that the
question can only be answered in the
affirmative.
Article Nv. section 8, of the constitu-
stion of the United States, reads:
"New states may be admitted by the
congress into this union; but no new
state shall be formed or erected within
the jurisdiction of any other state
nor any state be formed by the junction
of two or more states, or parts of states
without the consent of the legislatures
concerned as well as the congress"
Not only may new states be formed
by the junction of two or more states,
but states may be parted (divided), and
| these parts or divisions join or become
depreciation of this article will be seen
from the following analysis:
The declarations of this section are as
follows:
l. New states may be admitted by
the congress into this union.
2. No new state shall be formed Tor
erected) within the jurisdiction of any
other state; (without the con-
sent of the:
! (a.) Legislatures concerned,
(b.) As we'll as of the congress).
8. Nor any state be formed by the
| junction of two or more states, or parts
of states, without the consent of the:
(a.) Legislatures concerned,
| (b.) As we'll as of the congress.
If state partition or division is not
contemplated or permissible under this
section, then what do the words parts
of states" mean? 1t expressly says
"Nor any state [shall] be formed by
parts of states, without the consent" etc.
Is it not legal, therefore, for
parts of states to separate from
their mother states, and become
a single state? For example, if that
part of the state of Wisconsin north of
the 45th degree of latitude, and that
part of the state of Michigan north of the
lake, between Green bay and Lake
Michigan, should respectively separate
from their mother states, and become
the state of Marquette (or be known by
any other name, which might be
chosen) they have a right to do so un-
der section of article of the national
constitution. However, they could do
this on only two conditions, namely:
I First-The consent of the respective
legislatures of Wisconsin and Michigan.
| Second-The consent of congress.
Thomas M. Cooley. LID, in his
General principles of constitutional
law" edition of 1880, says on page 174 !:
A state government may consent to
| the erection of new state within the
limits of the old, and the legislatures of
the old and new states may agree upon
! conditions. 1t is competent in such a
case to make the annexing of certain
part of the old state to the new depend
upon favorable vote of the electors
within such territory; and when that is
done, and the governor is given power
to certify the result, his certificate that
| the vote was favorable, especially if
accepted and acted upon by the new
| state, by the extension of jurisdiction
over the territory, is conclusive"
(NoTE.-This is exactly what was
done in California in 1859. Over two.
thirds OF the electors of the southern
counties, comprising the new territory,
voted for separation. The governor
then certified to the returns, and sent
them to the president and congress.
How foolish have been the people of
Southern California, in the light of the
foregoing law and testimony, that they
have thus far failed to assert their
separate jurisdiction
(This same principle of submitting
the question Of sustaining new govern
ment to the electors of the territory to
be included therein, was applied TO the
separation Of Orange from Los Angeles
county in l889)
The question becomes clearer as it is
further investigated. Says Paschal,
page 118:
I'VE must apply to the constitution
the same rules Of Interpretation which
we apply to all other instruments, laws
| and statutes. That is to construe it by
its language, nature, reason and spirit
objects and intention, and the interpre
| tations Of contemporaneous history.,'
l The interDrefafio0g nf contaronors.