San Andreas independent., 1857-08-22
[ For the independently
The State Debt.

1T Isl at least my privilege to question his author
ity for dstortihg sentences, and concealing their
true intent by Withholding part. In a general
remark or observation, relative Illustrative
expression may frequently be made; which, it
it would be illiberal to construe into a positive
assertion
He charges me with motives subyersive of
liberty: disregard for the Constitution coun-
selling opposition to established law, and an
endcavor to "instil the principle of scrvile sub
mission into the minds of the people" and says
that l " throw out insinuations derogatory to
the origin and perpctuity of set-government."
BY what logic or mode of fair reasoning he
thus accuses me, | am at a loss to determine,
not being ingenious enough to perceive any
reasonable motive in an endeavor TO prevent
| the commission of an act, which, it is con-
tended would disgrace the State l cannot
perceive either lack of patriotism, or unsettled
notions of LIBERTY, in supporting public credit;
neither am aware Of how it can be possible to
"inst the principle of scrvilc submisson into
the minds of the people" by counseling
Il
Sanguinity Of enthusiasm, cyincing a hope of
accomplishing much good, a. Democrat ac-
quaints us of our disregard for the Constitution
and illustrates his contempt of what he estecms
seditious views of mine on self-gOvernment'
by placing me in common keeping with that
class who say that we onght to pay what they
call the State debt Where then do we stand?
In opposition to injustice, or in favor of the
policy of dllowing public functionares to
plan and complete, at will, any treachcrous
enormity they please and thereby render our
selves ridiculous? Self-government-what is
it? Does it mean to gocern ourselves? Or is
it right individuals possess to do as they
please?
If 1t Is the former, and the agents of the peo-
pie contract debt in violation of that Consti-
tuition which is laid before them to guide and
rule their action, what is it best. then for the
people to do? This is, precisely and pointed
y, the question. The Constitution, we have
all along admitted has been violated No mat
ter whether this admission is made from sim
cere belief in its truth or through respect to
the decision of the Supreme Court, or both II
is admitted; but how, when, under what cir
cumstances and to what extent has it been Vi
oated? Was it done all at once by one mas
terly stroke of vllainous policy that could not
possibly be prevented by the people, or has il
been gradual system OF official robbery. going
on for years, wormng its way through several
administrations, and known to every intelligent
citizen of the country, sanctioned BY their inert
passlveness and silence? This tacit consent on
the part Of the people, amounting to a positive
approval, with the facts fully before them. is
the ground upon which we contend that the
people ought to pay the State debt
With this view of the subject, we used tb,
language so obnoxious to "A Democrat" This
hue and cry about legality constitutionality.
&c, in an affair of this kind. under such Cir
cumStances, we cannot even after reading the
pleasing dissertation, perceive where any very
egregious blunder is made.
Does he mean to say that it is either honora
bic, just, or even presents an excusable show of
respectabllty, for the people to encourage their
Indifference; allow, by their silence the men
they have chosen to rule over them in civil
lawful authority to pifer with impunity for a
series of years evidently expecting to enjoy
share of the monies fraudulently extorted from
others; and after finding that only few rotten
wharves, &c, loom up before their disappointed
vision, as monuments of this stupcndous cheat,
then, and not till then-when then see and kaou
that their share is nothing-turn round and kick
their creditors, ostensiby because the whole
thing turns out to be an Improbable specula
ton. We hope that this is neither self-pov-
ernment, nor an . established principle -
While the Constitution makes no Sprovision for
its own violation" we find men reneatedlv
elected to office who seem to pay it but little
respect. Whose fault is this? Is it the neo-
pies fault that the great m ,jority of the enact
ments of our Legislature has little affinity to
CONSTITUTIONAL law! IT it is not the peoples.
fault, do they gorern themselves? "A Demo-
crat' says: Make California, if vou nle,sc
an asylum for all the piratica rcnecadeS. ont
laws and fends in human form from overy ~,
t'oh under the sun, and give them all an office, |
II yon like, but do it consttutonally" Would
II not be like carrying Goals to Newcastle" to
attempt this work? And then the office part of
1t has been religiously ATTENDED TO and where
Is one othce-holder who has not been elected
constltutionally? II We elect men to office who
invade the constitution, and when their term
expires, we elect them again, do ace respect the
constitution, or revere it any more than money
catching jockey does the constitution of Il dis
eascd horse?
"a Democrat asks g If we disregard con-
in an affair of this kind, under
gerous precedent for the future Also
q when will similar causes for its violation
coaeo 70 oxst2 II lawyers do contend that