Evening star., 1928-10-21
CHANGING THE u. S. MAP
BY FREDERIC ]. HASKIN.

the new State. 1t would have an area
of about 3,700 square miles and popu-
lation exceeding 100000. 1t would
be more populous than the whole Do
minion of Canada.
A similar suggestion has been made
In respect to st. Louis and its environS.
It. too, Is a great port and commercial
center. In fact, st. Louis manufac-
turers and other business men, in thor
national advertising, already use Ne
slogan, THE Forty-ninth StateI"
Chicago has been proposed as another
new State. Here, again, is a case in
which there Is great metropolis paying
a large share of the taxes OF the State
within which it lies. 1t is a lake port
and, by the way of the Welland Canal,
seaport. 1t is the greatest railway
center in the country. 1t is often Of
different political complexion from the
remainder of the State.
The long-standing rivalry between
San Francisco and Los Angeles is ma
tionally known and the separation of
the northern and southern sections of
California frequently advocated. There
are sound economic reasons, each Sec
ton having its special features and
products and each its great metropolis
and seaport.
1t has been proposed to divide the
vast State OF Texas, which formerly
was an Independent republic, into four
States. The area is so extensive that
the type OF people and the type of in
duStry and agriculture in some parts ar
greatly different from those of others
The matter of effecting consolida-
tions would be well-nigh impossible.
Any expert geographer admits, for ex-
ample, that Delaware and Maryland
should be one State. But tradition,
State pride and every local sentiment
would revolt against the idea of giving
up sovereignty. Politically two seats in
the Senate would have to be yielded up.
And what name would the new State
bear? The cities of Norfolk and Ports
mouth. both in Virginia and both an
cient. once reached the very point of
consolidation when the entire scheme
fell through because each insisted that
the new city should bear its name.
Logical consultations would be the
making of Maine, New Hampshire and
Vermont into one State and Massa-
chusetts. Rhode Island and Connecticut
into another Each one of those an
cient commonwealths would fight to the
last ditch on the ground of tradition
alone
Such changes would bring about
notable alterations in Congress. A
State could proudly give birth to an
offspring and thereby get two more
Senators. Texas, for example, would
have six more. There is no suggestion
that Alabama be divided Representa-
ton in the House of Representatives
would be unchanged, as that is appor-
toned by population.
The Federal Government had the task
of laying out the West into States when
they were little populated. The famous
Ordinance of 1887 divided the Northwest
Territory into the five States of Ken
lucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Mich
igan. More than half a century later
West Virginia was Topped off from the
Old Dominion. The Territory of Dakota
was divided into two sections and the
two States of North and South Dakota
were admitted to the Union. The Indian
Territory was consolidated with Okla
homa and the whole admitted. The
Federal Government has never faced
the task of consolidating two States.
It is likely that the trend toward
creation of city-States will gradually
increase. Urban and rural populations
have different interests The New York
City Senator has difficulty in bringing
his talents to bear in the question Of
farm relief, for example Issues would
be more clearly drawn as between the
cities and the rural districts. There
would be a truer representation of the
constituencies under such a division