The herald., 1895-02-24

OF the north again, we are controlled by
San Francisco corrupt politicians, evil
denced by the last election which would
not be so were Los Angeles the head
quarters.
II. A. Mccoy, Postmaster-I have put
the question to several prominent men
here and they agree with me that the time
is not yet to advocate state division. Ex-
ira expense is the principal reason.
d. Freeman, Los Angeles-I do not
approve of any agitation at present in
favor of state division. 1t could not now
be done, and useless attempt would only
embitter section against section. l prefer
not to be quoted on the question.
A. r. Bentley, Compton-Decdedly in
favor of division as soon as the same can
be accomplished. The state is too large
and too long embracing ten to fifteen de-
grees of latitude) and the state govern
ment should become nearer to govern
ment of the people in their own locality.
b. s. Nichols, Pomona-I am not suf-
ficiently informed to give an opinion on
the subject, and therefore cannot decide
the question pro or con.
r. e. Nickel, editor and proprietor
Acton Rooster am not in favor of state
division at this time. When we will have
more population, then it will be more
practical.
G.. y. Griffiths, Los Angeles-I am
opposed to such action for many reasons
which I deem good, prominent among
them being:
First-That the southern state would
contain population not materially ex-
ceeding one-fourth of that of the present
state, and the great cost of organizing
and establishing new state government
would put tax upon this comparatively
small number of people that would be
an exceedingly heavy burden for many
years.
Second-As the state is now completely
in the grasp of combination of political
tricksters who control and manipulate all
OF its affairs to suit themselves, it would
be decidedly impolitic to strengthen their
hands by creating host of new offices to
be filled, and large amount of new
political business to be controlled by
them.
Third-The state as it now stands has a
history and a prestige the peer of any in
the Union. and to divide it would be to
destroy the autonomy to which these at
tributes belong, and they form the nu-
cleus of warm and tender affection, sur
rounded by rich memories OF hope, dis
pointment, success and all other senti-
ments of human life, that cannot be erad-
icated from the hearts of old Californians
e. G. DEMO, attorney, Long Beach,
| am opposed to state division, first, as :.
matter of economy in state government
| l believe we are strong enough to demand
and obtain all that rightfully belongs to
the southern part of the state, and if that
| be true, | can now see no reasonable
grounds for desiring division. 1 should
regret exceedingly to see step taken that
would so inevitably tend to diminish the
| influence that California is bound to exer-
else in national affairs in the near future
if left to develop without dismemberment.
Many Citizens of Lemoore-No Not
until you build competing railroad into
this section. That may change our
| opinions.
E. BoutOn, Los Angeles-I think the
| division of California impossible and the
discussion of the question improbable and
detrimental. Some years ago discussed
the matter with Senator John Sherman,
who expressed the opinion emphatically
that it was simply impossible, saying that
California with three-quarters of million
OF people had four Senators, while New
York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, with an
average of 1000, 900 each, had but two Sen
ators apiece and that the United States
Senate would never vote to give California
| two more Senators He credited the two
Nevada Senators to California.
John F. Humphreys, Los Angeles-I
am decidedly in favor OF state division,
and deem this an appropriate time to be-