Boston, Plym., and Boise, Bitt.

By the reckoning of G. Etzel Pearcy, recently retired from his post of professor of geography at California State University, Los Angeles, the total cost of operating all 50 state governments in the U.S. amounts to some $18 billion annually. That figure disturbs him, and he has proposed a simple solution: reduce the number of states. Since in his view the nation has 38 conveniently defined areas, Pearcy says that the ideal number of states would be 38. He estimates that the savings in state salaries, building maintenance, capital outlays and such would amount to $4.6 billion.

Pearcy has drawn up a map of the 38 states, which he has given poetically apt new names and boundaries that cut across existing state lines. The new state of Bitterroot, for instance, named for a local mountain range, takes in most of Idaho, slices of Oregon, Montana, Washington and northwest Wyoming. Cochise unites major portions of Arizona and New Mexico. Plymouth embraces the city of Boston, the eastern portion of Massachusetts, and part of New Hampshire. New York City and environs would become the state of Hudson, and Alamo on the map is basically Texas without the panhandle. Under these circumstances, perhaps Old Glory could use some revitalizing, too, and Whitney Smith of the Flag Research Center in Winchester, Mass., has come up with a striking new design for a national banner.

What would be the political consequences of the new arrangement? Pearcy sees virtually no change in the way Congressmen would be elected to the House of Representatives, but he envisions each new state having not two but three U.S. Senators. He does not suggest how they should be identified. Perhaps senior, junior and sophomore? Of course, Pearcy acknowledges that under his plan there would be fewer Governors. But, says he, "I know of several Governors we could do without."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.