Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1864-07-21
TIE STATE QUESTION.

We hardly conceive it possible that the
editor of the Herald or anybody else could
misconceive our position on the State
Government question, and it is not pleas
ant to suppose that he would wilfully
misconstrue US; yet it is apparent from
his leading article of last evening that ne
does one or the other. His article in
question commences thus:
Without any design Of imputing other
than honorable motives 10 our cotempora-
ries, the Gold Hill News and Enterprise,
the conduct Of these two papers in so sud
denly changing their base on the State
question appears altogether inconsistent with
the character of faithful Z nion journals, such
as they claim to be. Both these papers, but
few months since, were quite eloquent IN
their advocacy of the adoption Of 4 State
Censtitution-proved BY elaborate arrays OF
figures, and by many sound arguments, sup
ported by facts, that State Government was
essential TO the prosperity Of the Territory.
What we should like to be informed, has
caused so great a change in the opinions OF
these journals, that from being friends oil
such a measure they have become It's bitter
est opponents:
We answer for ourselves. The position
of the Enterprise is unlike ours. 1t has
taken, for reasons best known and salts
factory to itself, a strong affirmative ground
against the State Government PROPOSE
ton. We have done no such thing,
and the charge that We have become
"bitter opponent of the proposition has
no foundation in fact, and cannot be de-
duced from any article that we have ever
written upon the subject. All that the
Herald SAYS that we did last winter in the
matter is true, and were we in mood to
bore our readers with twice-told tale,
and 20 MI our columns with arguments
which were spurned and scofed at by
fve-sixths of the people Of the Territory
we could honestly and sincerely do so
again. This is precisely what the editor
ofthe Herald is dong. As editor ofthe
Bulletin he took the same view Of the
question as ourselves, and together we
toiled and tugged and strained to roll the
large round stone of the Constitution up
the hill of manifest popular opposition,
until, on the 18th of January last, it
slipped from our grip and went
laundering down to the plain. Our CO.
temporary has returned to the task like
another Sysiphus. The hill is as steep
and the stone is as heavy as ever, and we
have no stomach for a repetition of the
toilsome task. All honor and glory to
the Herald for its pertinacity, but we are
most decidedly not on it. As to the
LOYALTY sermon, which constitutes the
body and bones of his article, that is a
point wherein we differed from him,
even while we were his co-laborer in the
cause. Our soundness on that question,
we hatter ourselves is too well established
TO need any self-defense. We rest easy
on that score. We have repeatedly, since
the passage of the Enabling Act, declared
our preference for a State Government
and if the Convention present Us with a
Constitution, that we believe the people
can be convinced BY facts and figures that
they are able to sustain, we will support
it. Every argument that we could bring
to bear to that end has already been pre-
sented through our columns and we have
not a new one to offer. What were good
arguments then are good now, but we
are neither going to weary ourselves nor
our readers with their repetition.