The record-union., 1897-09-22
sTRAWs AND THE WIND.

1t is absolutely idiotic to argue that
because the State Board of Equaliza-
tion IS chosen by electors in districts,
therefore it is controlled by sectional
ism, or that sections are arrayed
against each other. As a matter of
fact one member of the board is chosen
at large. In the cases of the three
outside members their districts are
not alade up along political lines, nor
yet along the lines of mutality of local
interests, nor because of county, dis
trict or community antagonisms.
Rather the outside equalization dis
tricts are bounded so as to fairly di-
vide the State according to population
and geography. There is no special
community of interest nor any ami
mostly between the people of these dis
tricts because of such division. Where
interests combine to promote local and
selfish ends. they range upon wholly
different lines.
Sanity viii scarcely contend that the
local interests are common between AL
pine ana Alameda, San Joaquin and Ell
Dorado Sacramento and Nevada, Con-
ira Costa and Tuolumne. Yet these,
with Calaveras and Placer, comprise
the Second Equalization District. So,
too, common sense would not harness
Yolo and Yuba together in community
of interest so far as local concerns are
involv ed, nor Lake and Sierra, nor SUIT
ter and Plumas, or Napa and Hum
boldt. Yet these, with others equally
as diverse in products and policies, en-
vironment and conditions, comprise the
Third Equalization District.
If, then, there is no special commun-
ity of local interests between all the
units of the districts, how supremely
absurd it is to argue that there could
possibly be any antagonism between
the districts as such. What under the
sun could possibly array the people
of Arnador, Alameda, Alpine, Calaveras,
Contra Costa, FL Dorado, Nevada
Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin and
Tuolumne as units of the Second dis
trict against the people of Butte, Co
lusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt
Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Mo
doc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou,
Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Trim
ity, Yolo and Yuba, units of the Third
District?
Or why should these or either of
them entertain sectional jealousy
against San Francisco, the sole unit of
the First District? All such reasoning
as contends that a district system cul-
tivates district antagonisms, is ridicu-
lous. If interior interests are ever ar
rayed against those of the metropolis,
it Is because reason, State interest and
fair play justify the protest. 1t is pre-
cisely for those reasons that it is con-
tended that dispersion of the voting
strength of the interior with con-
solidation of the voting strength
Of populous centers, such as
San Francisco, and the close lying
counties about her. would tend to dom
ination in State policy by ingle Sec
ton. and hence result in injustice to
the State at large.
When it comes. therefore, to pure
selfsnness and concern for the home
threshold rather than for the best in
terests of the State at large San Fran
cisco is perforee a unit Now it is
clear that abolition of the district sys-
tenn and division of the vote for all
candidates for positions as equalizers
among all the outside counties. with
San Francisco's consolidated vote
thrown where it would do the most
good, would make her autocratic in the
board to say nothing of the aid rem
dered by other centers of population,
such as Oakland. This IS already
proven by the fact that since this de-
bate began not a single Alameda. Con-
ira Costa or San Francisco paper, and
but one, we believe. in Santa Clara, has
espoused other than the San Francisco
cause. the cause promoted in the inter
est of San Francisco, namely the break
ing up of the district system. Straws
show which way the wind blows.
Some curious figuring is INDUCED in