The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-06-02
A STATE, NOT A TOWN QUESTION.
The San Jose Mercury says in the
course Of long article:

A STATE, NOT A TOWN QUESTION.
The San Jose Mercury says in the
course Of a long article:
The Sacramento RECoRD-UNIoN makes the
plea that san Jose is urging the removal of
the State Capital 10 this city purely for self
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, and that Sacramento is
struggling 10 retain il in the general interest
OF the whole State. The placid simplicity of
this plea is worthy of the shepherds of Ar
eadia. 1t is so very true and yet it is SO very
wrong that none but one who is both innocent
and ignorant could have unused upon it long
enough TO fash on it into words.
The assertion we made was in approval
Of similar declaration in the Oakland
Inquirer, and we repeat tit is self-evi-
dent truth. That Sacramento contends
for retention of the Capital where it is,
because to disturb present conditions by
removal would temporarily injure Sacra-
mento, we do not deny. nor will anyone
that much of the selfshness Of human
nature we freely concede to exist in Sac
ramento. 1t would be unworthy dis
tinction as the Capital City were this not
true.
But it is true, and the Mercury pays a
poor tribute to intelligence by denying it..
that Sacramento's contention runs with
State interest and not against it, 1t is
simply folly to pretend that State interest
will be conserved by permitting valuable
property owned here by the State to re-
vert, by violation of the conditions of
the gift it is rank Stiffness to contend
that the State is to be benefited by piling
upon its overburdened taxpayers new
cost of over 100000 for new State
structures and other costs made neces-
sary by any removal.
The man does not live to-day who be-
iieves-he does not even breathe in San
Jose-who honestly holds that that city
is actuated in her condition solely by State
good. San Jose is moved by what she
believes will be to her gain-that is the
long and the short of the whole matter.
She is mistaken in that idea. but that is
no matter now.
Remove the Capital and the consequent
cost to be taken out of the taxpayers
pockets will not be less in six years than
100000, plus the loss of the property
here, for it is not the Capitol building
alone that is to cost, but there are other
buildings. essential to it, and the Incl
dentals of putting grounds into order and
the costs of removal, which will fix an
extra upon taxpayers of a round 81 ,IO0.-
600 year for six years after the lob is
undertaken-the supposed million San
Jose is expected to raise would be but a
drop in the ultimate sum.
Let us see. in cold figures. what Capt.
tai removal is going to do for the tax
payer, by way of so-called benefits and
"aggrandizement of the State":
For the year to June 30, 1891, State Gov
eminent cost the people of California
Ss,Ol4,194
For the year succeeding it cost them
S,764,73S; let us adopt this figure.
On the basis of a population of Dos
goo for California, this was a per capita
for all inhabitants of the State of almost
So so.
To this must be added county taxes
land we exclude the municipal taxes a
large part of the people pay.
Take Santa Clara County, to illustrate.
with a rather lower tax rate than most
counties.
In Santa Clara County, in 1892, the
assessment roll aggregated S54, sl2. 900,
and the population was $4,000.
The county tax rate is II Clio cents. So
that the per capita paid in taxes for
county purposes was over s..
Let US add the State per capita of a. IN
to this, and without Capital removal the
per capita tax in Santa Clara, exclusive
OF city and town taxes, amounts to sI4 so.
But Capital removal is going to add
Sl,l00,000 year for six years to the sum
to be raised for State purposes, and this
is low, conservative estimate for Gov
eminent work, If Capitol is to be
erected such as the Mercury says should
comport with our fame and greatness as a
State. Are the people who bear such
burdens already, prepared to indulge in
the luxury of new Capitol and other
buildings when they are already better
accommodated in that line than most OF
the States of the Union?
We have shown that already the Der
capita tax in California is S. 50 for State
Government alone. Let us see how this
figure compares with some other costs OF
State Government, treated in round num-
bers:
Govt Cost. Population. Per G.
Ohio-..-..-.......S3 513, 600 S,612. 600 81 00
1llinois.....-... /, 500 900 3,s26OOO I 81
Pennsylvania S,16S,O 900 5.25s,OoO 81
California ...... 7,764,73S 1,2OS,oOO 81
In the face of such figures we are as
suredly well prepared to indulge in the
luxury of new Capitol building and the
jobbery of Capital removal. and to give tc
the original owners ground and property
worth to the State to-day s., 900, 900, with