Los Angeles herald., 1909-10-03
ANSWERS TALK
OF MAN AGAINST
STATE DIVISION
JOHN D. WORKS REPLIES TO
GRANT JACKSON
HEAD OF CITY CLUB REFUTEs
SPEAKERS ARGUMENTS
Denies Separation of California Would
Have Any Effect on Success
of the Owens River
Project

President John D. Works of the City
| club knocked the props from under
such arguments as Grant Jackson ad-
vanced yesterday, when be addressed
/ the. City club on state Division;
| Menace to Los Angeles"
| Judge Works paid due Difference to
| Mr.. Jackson's legal knowledge, but
said he was arguing outside the facts
when he declared the Owens river wa
ter supply would be jeopardized by
state division, as the city's property
in the owens valley had been acquired
| through the contract right of purchase
and the water by filing as provided by
! the California laws, and if those laws
| had been complied with, the owens
| river water represented vested rights
/ that could not be taken away from us.
! Mr.. Jackson's address was, in part,
d reply to former Senator Bulla, who
addressed the City club two weeks ago
| in favor of state division. In his ad-
dress, Mr.. Bulla discussed three sub
| jects: Can the state be divided? Should
the state be divided? VIII the state be
divided?
In summing up, Mr.. Bulla answered
| all these questions in the affirmative
and satisfied a large and enthusiastic
audience the state could, should and
will be divided.
| Talks Against Division
Mr. jackson answered only one of
these questions: Should the State be
Divided?" and endeavored to show
that it should not. He went into no
| other phase of the matter except the
Owens river project and from the COM
plicat tions which, he said, would ensue
argued the state should not be divided.
He arbitrarily concluded the state
| legislature could not be induced to
consent to the division of the state, al
though the state legislature did once
| consent and as a result the Pico bill
was passed in 1859 dividing the state
at Tehachapi pass. The people voted
on the matter and by an overwhelming
majority favored the division of the
state. The action of the people was
sent to the national congress for ap-
proval, but as the civil war broke out
about that time no action was taken
and this matter still is before congress.
! AS the state legislature could not be
| induced to pass another bill of the
kind, said Mr.. Jackson, although why
it could not be did not say, it would
| be necessary to proceed along the lines
of the old Pico bill and cut the state
in two at the Tehachapi. This would
leave Inyo county, in which the citys
water rights are located, in another
state. This would produce serious
complications, declared Mr.. Jackson.
Fears High Taxes
In the first place, he said, as another
state would have jurisdiction, it could
assess whatever taxes it pleased and
he believed these taxes would be high.
| Again, the state of South California
would have no right to go into North
| ern California and secure more water
rights through the right of eminent
domain.
But the most serious matter was
| that Los Angeles would surely lose
what property and water it had ac-
quired In the Owens valley, as North
ern California could pass a law for
bidding the transportation of waters of
! the northern state to any other state.
And not only would it have the right,
said Mr.. Jackson, but 1t would surely
be done, as certain interests in the
northern state would keep after the
Legislature until 1t was accomplished.
| When ne had concluded and polite
round of applause had greeted his clos
ling remarks, President Works took the
floor to thank the speaker for his
address.
"I am glad we have had the privilege
of listening to the side of the matter
presented by Mr.. Jackson" said Mr..
| Works. az personally favor state di-
vision, but | cautioned this club two
| weeks ago that We must not be actu-
| ated by what possible injustice had
been done us by the state board of
equalization, but If anything was done
toward state division it must be on
higher grounds.
'I do not believe state division would
effect our owens river water supply
in the slightest degree. Our rights in
Inyo county are acquired in ways pro-
vived by existing laws. Our property
is acquired by the contract right of
purchase and then by filing, and if the
laws have been complied with our
rights are vested rights that no state
can take from us
eff the state of California will steal
these rights from us, and that is about
what the suggestion made by Mr.,
Jackson amounts to. then the quicker
we get away from it the better. If II
would not do so, and I believe 1t would
not, then the people of Northern Cali
fornia have been libeled.
'I believe division would be of bene-
fit for us all, north and south, al
though much can be said on both sides,
7 am sorry Mr.. Jackson did not go into
some other phases of the matter than
the owens river project, which Will not
be affected"
Given $500 Damages
rrI,o i,,r1y in the suit of Mrs. Cath