The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-03-26


IS THE GOVEBNMENT BOUND TO
PROTECT Dun CITIZENS AND MAKE
CONFIRMATION ROR LOSSES By IN-
DIAN DEPREDATlONs9
It may be a matter Of surprise TO our
readers that we should ask such question.
for here in Texas the general conviction is
that the government is bound. But the
Committee on Indian Affairs in the United
States Senate, who were instructed by reso-
luton TO examine and report whether, in
their judgme gpany obligation rests upon
the United States to reimburse the several
States and Territories and citizens thereof
for incurred and damages sustained
by reason of the incursions OF hostile In
dians, F" have made their report, in which it
is asserted that ''such obligation is not as
sumed when the States enter the Union, nor
results from their relation to it when so ad-
mitted" The report concludes with the
following remarkable and astounding Ian
guage, from which We totally dissent;
1t is scarcely to be presumed that the
volved by the incursions of marauding par
ties of Indians as to render it necessary for
the State to appeal to the United States
government for aid to defend its soil or the
property or persons Of its citizens. And II
not, certainly no such obligation as is sug-
gested would be imposed. The case can
not be otherwise in regard to the territories,
unless the expenses have been incurred by
authority of the United States. The duty
of protecting its citizens rests primarily
with the States, and it Is not perceived that,
under circumstances such as are supposed,
that duty could be devolved upon the United
States.
Now, according to the articles of annexa-
ton, the State of Texas was required to
cede to the United States all public edifces,
Notifications, barracks, ports and harbors,
navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines,
arms ornaments, and all other property and
means pertaining to the public defense.
And by article one, section eight, Of the
Constitution of the United States, the Con
gress is bound (shan have power to provide
for the common defense and general well
fare. If, then, the State surrendered all
the means of defense which she possessed,
to the general govsrnment, as condition
precedent to her admission into the Union,
how can the government deny that Texas
is entitled to protection from Indian inVa-
sions, raids and robberies, and that her cit
izens can justly claim compensation for
losses by their depredationsi The very
terms of admission would bind the govern
ment without any other law or reason.
But among the powers of Congress, it
will be seen, is that of providing for the
general defense. Having then thepower,
and having required Texas to give up all
her means of defense, it would be an act of
bad faith not to protect her citizens and
not to indemnify them for losses by Indian
predations-whichn no government can be
guilty of without loss of character in the
discharge of the most sacred and binding
obligations. But we are not left to doubt
about it. There are facts connected with
this subject which have transpired since the
reconstruction of the State, and which
show that the government felt bound topro-
tect our people. e.
The Thirteenth Legislature proposed to
put force in the field for the protection of
our citizens on the frontier; but, as there
was some doubt about the State being per-
mitted to do so by the government, CORE
spondence was opened, and the Secretary of
War applied to for information on the sub
ject. An answer was received refusing to
permit the State to arm and equip regi-
ment for frontier protection, claiming that
the government had the sole and exclusive
right to deal with the Indians and to place
troops along the border to oprevent their in
cursionsl Now the chairman of the Com
mittee on Indian Affairs in the Senate, re-
ports that the government is not liable for
losses on account of depredations; and that
il is primarily the duty of the States to
protect their citizensi II the State of Texas
could not be trusted to defend her own
borders then it was the duty Of the gov
eminent to do so; and If protection is not
amply provided what court Of equity would
refuse to adjudge the government liable for
all loss Of life and property The State
was, and is, anxious to defend and protect
the lives and property of her people; and
all she asked of the government was the
privilege to do so. But it is refused.
What theni Win the Secretary Of
War answerS What monstrOus absurd
ity. Must the sfrOntier be rolled back
until a large number Of organized counties
shall be wholly at the mercy Of the Indians
and outlaws, and be beyond the pale of civ
ilizationG The matter is one Of the gravest
import. viii not our Senators and Repre-
sentatives press the question upon the gov
ernment until satisfactory solution shall
be arrived att