The Nevada journal., 1860-06-08

question 10 not nappen 10 correspond; Dut
this we submit is to us so much of q misfor-
tune that our attention ought not to be cal
led to the fact ofteEer than once 81 week In
latcnumber, the Journal says:
The Sacramento Union is still blowing away
about the negligence of the General Government
in not furnishing protection to the people of Utah
against the Indians, but has not a word to say
about its old doctrine that the people of Terri
tory independent till they are admitted into
the Union, when, for the first time, they assume
the character of American citizens and are sub
| ject to the laws of the United Stases. Nary
| time.
We would respectfully inform the editor
of the Jo,Hnal-if he is unaware of the fact
that it is the duty of the United States
Government to protect the people of States
and Territories from Indian invasions and
attacks. One of the leading objects of its
creation was to afford such protection. So
far as the duties of Government are involved
the territories of the States and those with
out their limits stand in the same position.
Governmentally speaking, this continent,
from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from
Mexico to the British possessions, is Ameri-
can territory, and the National Government
| is bound to protect the people thereon
against foreign invasion, a foreign foe as
well as from the scalping knife and toma-
hawk of the Indian. Those obligations it
has always acknowledged, and always pro-
fessed to discharge. Particularly have they
been acknowledged in the sovereign State
of California. Since her organization SOL
diers have been stationed in different por-
| tions of the State to protect her citizens :;
reservations for Indians have been main
tanned at an enormous expense for the same
purpose; and, in addition, the Federal Gov
ernment has paid nearly million of dollars
| to the State for expenditures incurred in
Indian wars and she claims still several
hundreds of thousands from Washington in
! consideration Of Indian wars. Had Califor-
mia been a Territory, as Utah is, the duty of
defending her people would have been none
the less imperative on the part of the Ma
tional Government.
The Journal does not state our doctrine of
the status of the people of Territory cor
rectly. 1t has never been assumed by us
that the people of a territory were entirely
Independent of the General Government, or
that they lost their character as American
citizens when they became territorial resi-
dents. But we have asserted and do still,
their independence in legislating upon their
domestic affairs; and that, by virtue of their
sess the right to legislate for themselves
whenever they determine their interests as
4 community demand they should do so.-
This right and this power we contend exists
as clearly before they meet to form State
Constitution, as it is admitted it does after
they assemble for that object in Convention.
1t is inherent and does not depend for its
development upon the forms and ceremonies
49,.
to form a Constitution. Congress may as
sent to the exercise of this right at par
ticular time, but it can no more confer it
upon people than it can titles of nobility.
We lead in apology for being "dis-
tressed" that we read the editorials of the
Union, and throw ourselves on the sympa-
thy of every man who is so rash as to make
the same venture. But the Union mistakes
a point. 1t is no matter of surprize that
the Union is found advocating this course
to-day and that tomorrow, for it seems to
us to have about as much appreciation of
consistency as digger of a clean shirt
The Union has large circulation obtained
from its means to procure the latest and
fullest news. Its business is to inform the
people, and when it undertakes to do so it
should at least be consistent and truthful
We do not call it to account for differing
with us, but for differing with ITSELF
The candid and logical reasoner will see
by the language quoted above that the IN
ion editor asserts we differ on the Territorial
question, but Immediately thereafter ex-
pends the bulk of his article in imparting
the astonishing information that the United
States Government is in duty bound to pro-
tect States from invasion, and then follows
the amount that has been paid by the Gen
eral Government to this State for Indian
Wars. 1t is a wonder the Union did not go
on and tell us how many cords of wood this
amount would purchase at a certain sum
per cord 1t would have been quite as per-
tinent to the issue.
The Union would inform us that ait is the
duty of the United States Government to
protect the people of States and Territories
against Indian invasions and attacks How
does the Union derive its information con-
cerning the Territories? The proof, we sup
pose, was intended to be conveyed in the
sentence: "Those obligations it has always
acknowledged and always professed to dis
charge" If this be proof we cite the ac-
acknowledgement of all departments of the
Government for sixty years that the Terri
tories are under the control of Congress,
and therefore the popular sovereignty dog
ma is proved fallacy. But more on this
point anon.
We come to the main issue between the
Onion and curse S. The Union denies that
we state its position correctly on the status
of the people of Territory. To save toe
frequent quotations we refer our readers to
the language of the denial of the Union
above given, and then present them the po-
stion taken by the Union some time since,
in commenting on the speech of Senator
Pugh We ask attention, in view of the ac-
cusation of the Union, to the following
language in the comments ON the Douglas
Pugh doctrine
The propositions laid down by the Ohio
Senator, in our judgment are incontrover-
tible. Citizens who emigrate from either
of the States of this Union into Territory
carry with them the inalienable right Of self
government as their birthright 1t is a right