Daily national Democrat., 1861-01-03

IN APru Ias6 an article appeared IN the
Democrat, presenting Che construction of a
Pacific Railroad, as the terms upon which
California would remain in the Union. In re-
ply 20 an article of ours, in which we deolar-
ed that the construction of the road was q
very important matter, but the failursto con
struct Immediately we did not consider suifi-
cient cause for US to leave the Union, among
other things it said:
Here we are on the outermost rim of the
continent, defenseless against any foreign
power that may choose to make aSgressions
-defenseless unless we transcend eur corsti-
tutionaI rights as a State and assume those
powers which properly belong to the Federal
Government; and this we shall have to do, if
Congress does not give us the protection which
we need"
In case Congress does not give US the pro-
lection which we need, we will have to assume
the powers which properly belong to the
Federal Government According to the
Democrat, a Pacific Railroad or disunion we
must have, for, surely it did not expect that
we would be allowed TO remain in the Union
when we transcribed our constitutional au-
thorty as a State Well now suppose the
General Government refuses to build a rail-
road, and California, following the advice OF
the Democrat, goes out ofthe Union, we won
der if that paper would be so blatant about
coercion Suppose we don't go out of the
Union, but follow the Democrats advice and
transcend our constitutional authority as a
State, while pretending to adhere to the con-
stitution, would the Democrat invoke the
General Government to use all its power to
coerce us, or. in other words, to send an army
here and butcher us ?-Erpress
The Express seems to have an idea that our
present position is inconsistent with one as
sumed in the article from which it quotes. II
is badly mistaken. We have been contending
all along, that there was no such thing as
getting out of this Union with President
in power who would enforce the Constitu-
tom except by revolution. We acknowledge
the right of revolution, but we deny the doe
trine of Secession. Should we ever favor the
withdraw of California from the Union, anc
the job be undertaken, we should expect tC
fight for it, if there was President in the
Chair fit to be there. We should be prepar-
ed to meet the consequences of revolution
and we would never set up the plea that W.
had Constitutional right to do what we wer,
doing.
Now, we said in the language quoted by
the Express, that if Congress did not give II
California we mean) the protection we need
we would have to undertake our own protec
ton, by assuming powers, as State, whic
properly belong to the Federal Government
We say so still. We must be protected an
it is absolutely necessary that we should b
protected by the Federal Government.
we are refused this protection, why, then W
are in favor of protecting ourselves, and, il
order TO do that, we wonld have to ASSUME
powers properly belonging to the Fedora
A.! Government. 1t does not follow that W,
must resist Federal authority. We woulC
simply undertake business, which was NOR,
properly within the province of the Genera
Government.
1t is not a fair construction of the languag,
to say that we advocate disunion
There is one thing certain, however, ant
that is,
THAT, if we should ever advocate sepa
ration of California from the Union, We woul,
advocate revolution, in plain terms, and no
undertake to assert the monstrous absurdit,
that there was no power of coercion in til
General Government. We believe full
in such power, and we further believe tina
it is the sworn duty of the President to ex
ercise it. Furthermore, we have never deni
ed such power, but ON the contrary hav
taken particular pains to prove that it reside
within the Government We have said w,
did not believe that the mere election of Lin
coin justifies Secession. But, if the Soutl
felt itself better ont of the Union than in it. il
had right to revolutionize, and thus get out
if it could. Our understanding of the Consti
tuition and the character of our Government
is altogether at variance with the doctrine
that State has constitutional right to Sc.
cede, and that there is no power to forcibly
prevent her. This was the understanding
Jackson had in 1882, and he was sustained
in it by nearly the whole country.