Los Angeles herald., 1909-09-19

the action or the state legislature
and this action was never taken.
When the matter reached the ma
tional capital the whole country
was excited over the vital questions
which had arisen between the north
and south as to the extension of
negro slavery and the rights of the
states to secede from the general
government, and 1t was feared that
if secession followed the creation OF
a new state or territory in southern
California would greatly strengthen
the secessionists by giving them
another territory, which would
favor negro slavery and furnish
them an outlet upon the Pacific
ocean, which might be made use or
to their advantage, in the event
that a confederation of seeding
states was created. This, as far
as I have been able to ascertain
was the only reason why the ques-
tion of the division of the state OF
California was never considered by
congress, and had it received con-
s,deration there is no reason to be-
lieve that the state would not have
been divided and q new state or ter
ritorv created In its southern part.
Division Not Prohibited
In nv own humble judgment,
there is no inhibition contained in
the federal constitution against the
creation of a new state from WITH
I'm the boundaries of one already
existing, and that If the statute OF
1883 is still in force the only thing
legally necessary to secure the
division of the state of California
is the consent of congress.
te
tive. II would, of course, be neces-
sorv to obtain the consent of the
LEGISLATURE Of California by the
massage of another act, and possibly
the consent of the people of the
state. or at least OF that portion 10
he segregated, upon submission TO
them of the proposition at general
election, such action, of COURSE 10
he followed by the subsequent con-
sent of congress. I say posslpiy
the consent of the people" as IL ls
nv no means certain that such con-
sent is necessary in order to enecC
the division of a state.
The question, then, of the presens
status of the act of 1859 becomes OIL
vital Importance In the consldera-
tion of the subject of state DIVISION;
NV own conclusion Is that tne salu
act is still in full force ana elec.'
II has never been expressly re-
pealed. and repeal by implication Is
never looked upon with favor by
the courts. Unless repealed by tne
adontion of the codes in 1872 or OF
the new constitution in 1879, the
act is still a part of the laws OF
our state. a -
AS the life of a statute IS not
affected by the lapse of time, II
seems to me that the conclusion IS
unavoidable that the act OF 1889 Is
still in full force and effect ana
that a proper representation TO
congress- of this fact and of the re-
suit of the vote of the people, taken
in accordance with the provisions
of the said act, will properly bring
before that body the question OIL
division of the state of California
for consideration and action.
Should state Be DiVided2
This brings us to the considera-.
ton of the second subdivision OF
our subject-should the state De ol-
yided? If the state of public SEN
timent in Southern California were
an answer to this question I do
not believe that l would need to
consume time in offering argu-
ments for or against state division,
as I think that within the last few
weeks the people with practical
unanimity have accepted the opin--
ion that it would be desirable ana
advantageous to our section TO et-
feet a division of the state. 1t IS
equally certain. however, that pup
lie opinion throughout the northern
and central portions of the state
does not favor division, although
there are not a few in that section
who are willing at least to see the
separation effected
But even public sentiment is not
entitled to consideration and
would not Justify state division un-
less based upon good Judgment and
sound reasoning. There are many
substantial arguments in favor or
the division of this state. Among
the most important I should place
the fact that large subdivisions of
government, whether states or
counties, are always exceedingly
EXPENSIVE to maintain and result
in a very great inconvenience fire.
uuentIy amounting to hardship to
the people residing within their
jurisdiction. Few people realize the
enormous extent of the area of
California (155.9S0 square miles)
which is practically as large as all
the New England states, New York
and Pennsylvania combined.
Imagine the storm of indignation
that would arise were the residents
of Pennsylvania compelled to 20 to
Boston to attend to business neces-
sary to be transacted at their state
capital! At present resident or
Sislxlyou or Of San Diego would re-
ouire at least four or five days and
the expenditure of S75 or 500 to
visit and transact any business at
Sacramento, the capital of the state.
Transportation Cost Hugo
The transportation of criminals
and incompetents from the various
counties of this state to its public
institutions is an item of enormous
expense in the administration of
the state government. Our own
county CLOS Angeles) in the year
1905 paid out in round numbers
$4,000 for this purpose alone, and
this Notwithstanding the fact that
we have In the south a state hos
pital to which the insane of this
section are sent. Add to this the
expenditures by other counties of
equal or greater distance from the
public institutions, and one Is
startled by the enormous amount
involved.
One of the most serious and far
reaching objections to the incon-
venience arising from the great dis
tance from one point to another In
the state of California is the enor-
nous political power given to trans
portation companies who, are al
ways willing to provide passes to
delegates and Cheerful workers"
in attendance upon political con-
ventions. Perhaps it should not be
SO. but It is nevertheless true that
good citizens and busy men hesi-
tate and generally refuse to become
delegates to the state conventions,
attendance upon which involves the
loss of practically a weeks time
and the expenditure cf from $50 to
S1OO In money