The record-union., 1895-01-18
WHY DIVIDE THE sTATEs

The division of a State into two or
more commonwealths can be justified
only on the ground that the severed parts
are not homogeneous in their interests;
that the segregation of the territory is
necessary to the enactment of such legis-
lation and general administration of
civil polity adapted to the wants of the
people Of the various sections. The only
justification for the dismemberment of
California would be found in the inability
Of the two sections to agree on necessary
legislation adapted equally to the growth
of each separate section.
The question then arises: What has
Southern California proposed which the
State of California has denied? The
southern portion of the State has been
represented for twelve consecutive years
in the Gubernatorial chair. Stoneman,
Waterman and Markham were all from
the South. If the southern portion of
the State has any special needs not COM
mon to the whole State, it should by this
time have beon discovered and pointed
out. Four years administration of Stone
man, four years Of Waterman and four
years Of Markham is sufficient time in
which to discover lack of homogeniety
between the various sections of the
country.
We are willing to admit with sincere
regret - even modification - that the
twelve years of administration by the
Southern California Governors have been
practically twelve years of misrule. But
the people of the southern portion of the
State wanted Governor, and that Office
has been conceded to them. 1t would be
embarrassing to any citizen living south
of Tehachapi to point to single line in
the Executive messages for the last
twelve years which would indicate that
the territory lying south of Tehachapi
has any special necessities, or that its
wants have not perfect identity with
the needs of every other portion of the
State. If the necessity for division of
some legislative, executive or judicial
want.
The southern portion of the State has
been constantly represented in the Legis-
lature What measure has been proposed
for the good of Southern California,
which, if passed, would have been iniuri-
GUS to any other portion of the country?
What special Southern California meas
ure has been proposed which has been
defeated in the Legislature by reason of
want of community of interest? Twelve
years of Southern California Governors
and nearly fifty years of Southern
California representation in the
Legislature have failed to discover a
single legislative or judicial necessity
which is not common to the whole State
Is there q latent want on the part of the
people of Southern California which the
Governors from that section and repre-
sentatives from that section in the Leg
islature have not had the ability to formu-
late? If such want really exists, the peo-
pie Of the State of California might with
great propriety appeal from the stupidity
of the Southern California Governors and
Southern California legislators to the
intelligence which perceives the in
congruity of interest between the terri
tory south of Tehachapi and the State of
California, and ask that it be clearly set
forth.
We are emphatically of the opinion
that no such want can be pointed out:
that neither Stoneman, Waterman nor
Markham had heard from any source of
any special necessity on the part of the
people of the territory south OF Tehach-
api; and that the members of the Legis-
lature have not come to the present ses-
sion pledged to the enactment of legisla-
ton designed especially to promote the
development of the southern end of the
commonwealth.
The whole scheme is corner-lot enter
prise. In the meantime let us deyoutly
pray that Governor Budd shall serve out
his full term. The southern portion of
the State certainly does not desire to con-
txol the executive Office unless such con-