Col Reese helps Nevada become a State

[This work is taken from a manuscript written by the publisher of The Nevada Observer in 1979-1980 and converted to digital form; Copyright © 2006 David Thompson]
EARLY GOVERNMENTS IN NEVADA

Chapter III
The Nataqua and Sierra Nevada Territorial Movements.
Part One: The Nataqua Territorial Movement
Carson County, Utah Territory had been organized less than a year when settlers in the Honey Lake Valley, began a movement for regional autonomy.[1] A number of citizens in that remote area, after giving prior notice, convened a meeting "for the purpose of forming such laws, rules, and regulations as are deemed necessary and advisable in view of the settlement of said valley."[2] The convention was held at Major Isaac Roop's house, April twenty-sixth, 1856, and the laws and regulations which were unanimously adopted and signed by twenty residents of Honey Lake Valley created a new Territory -- Nataqua.[3] Of course, the Territory was strictly unofficial outside the Honey Lake area, since Plumas County, California claimed jurisdiction over the valley.[4] Plumas County officials had a rough time exerting their authority there, and the signatories to the Nataqua Territorial document intended to run things their own way, notwithstanding the claims of Californians.[5]
Section One of the proceedings of the Nataqua government's laws and regulations set the boundaries of the new Territory:
Inasmuch as Honey Lake Valley is not within the limits of California, the same is hereby declared a new territory, and the boundaries thereof shall be as follows, viz: Beginning at a point where the 38 1/2 deg. of North Latitude crosses the East line of California; thence East to the 117 deg. West Longitude; thence North to the 42nd deg. North Latitude; thence running West to the 120 deg. West Longitude (NE corner of California); thence south to the beginning; the said territory to be named Nataqua (i.e., woman).[6]
Nataqua Territory embraced all of modern day Churchill, Douglas, Humboldt, Lyon, Ormsby, Pershing, Storey and Washoe Counties, Nevada, and a little more besides -- about 50,000 square miles.[7] A peculiarity of the boundaries of Nataqua Territory is that they did not include the area of Honey Lake at all -- which is where those law-makers lived.[8]
This attempt to include the Carson County settlements within the boundaries of the new Territory at Honey Lake seems to have been ignored by the settlers of Western Utah, and Nataqua Territorial officials did not extend their jurisdiction very far outside of their Honey Lake Valley residences.[9]
Part Two: The Wagon Road Movements
In the spring of 1857 there was a considerable interest among Californians on the subject of wagon roads, particularly those which crossed the Sierra Nevada mountains. The various branches of the old emigrant trail leading over the passes into California were scarcely more than tracks across the land; for purposes of commercial freight, only pack trains could successfully negotiate the rough highways. At the end of April there was a wagon road meeting at Genoa, where the assembled citizens elected delegates to attend a large wagon road convention at Mokelumne Hill, California.[10] Other residents of Carson Valley interested themselves in a rival wagon road convention at Sacramento.[11]
Road improvement and construction followed these conventions and others -- Jared B. "Bob" Crandall made the first successful passage over the Sierra Nevada mountains by stagecoach in June, 1857, on the road to Carson Valley from Placerville, and another coach from Oroville topped the summit and arrived shortly thereafter at Honey Lake.[12]
Crandall set up a regular stage service between Placerville and Carson Valley that same month, and within about a week John A. "Snowshoe" Thompson announced that he would establish an express during the summer of 1857, traveling between Mokelumne Hill and Carson Valley.[13] This brought the residents of Western Utah Territory into greater contact with the commercial interests on the other side of the Sierra Nevada mountains, and there also was something of a migration of Californians to Carson Valley during the summer of 1857.[14]
In addition to the newly arrived settlers from the western slope, overland emigrants also decided to make their homes in Carson Valley, and bought out the farms and ranches of some of the departing LDS Church settlers.[15] In a letter dated June twenty-fourth and written from Carson Valley, Judge James M. Crane estimated the population of Carson Valley had already reached eight or nine hundred people.[16] A company of one hundred and fifty Chinese from El Dorado County arrived during the summer at Gold Cañon and began construction on a ditch from Carson River to the diggings.[17] With these recent settlers, thousand of overland travelers passed through the area, in the largest emigration to California since the summer and fall of 1852.[18] The influx of new settlers and commerce revived the ambitions of the Carson Valley settlers for an independent government of their own.
Part Three: The Sierra Nevada Territorial Movement
At twilight on August third, 1857, a man with a cow bell went out and assembled some fifty people at D.E. Gilbert's saloon in Genoa.[19] The purpose of the meeting, according to the formal minutes, was "to take preliminary steps towards calling a grand mass meeting of citizens for the purpose of petitioning Congress to organize a new territory out of Utah, California and New Mexico."[20] Col. John Reese served the meeting as its chairman, while William Nixon was its secretary.[21] The participants in the meeting unanimously adopted a preamble and a number of resolutions, setting Saturday, August eighth, 1857 as the day for the mass meeting at Genoa, and appointed a committee of nineteen to make the necessary arrangements.[22] Judge James M. Crane and Carson County Judge Chester Loveland were invited to address the planned convention.[23]
Those favoring a new territory and those who were curious gathered at the town plaza of Genoa on the eighth of August, as planned.[24] Major William M. Ormsby called the mass meeting to order, by nominating Col. John Reese to preside over the convention.[25] The assemblage unanimously supported Major Ormsby's choice.[26] Major Isaac Roop, Captain F.C. Smith, Dr. B.L. King and Solomon Perrin were selected as Vice-Presidents for the convention, and D.E. Gilbert and John K. Trumbo were chosen to be secretaries.[27]
Colonel Reese explained the purpose of the meeting to those present, and upon a motion by Major Ormsby, the assembled citizens voted to allow Col. Reese to appoint a committee of nine persons, "to report business for the consideration of the meeting."[28] This committee then retired, and while they were out deliberating, Judge James M. Crane gave a speech in favor of the new territory (Judge Loveland, though invited to speak, did not attend the meeting).[29] Judge Crane talked for about an hour to the crowd.[30] According to a news report published in the Sacramento Union, the speech was well delivered and instructive; Judge Crane spoke on the policy of the federal government in reference to the public domain, and reviewed that policy as it had developed since 1798, describing the rise and progress of the lands west of the Alleghany Mountains, and particularly the lands in the Great Basin and on the Pacific Coast.[31]
After Judge Crane concluded his speech, Major Ormsby (the chairman of the committee to report business to the convention) submitted a set of resolutions and a memorial to Congress.[32] After one of the Secretaries read these proposals to the assembled citizens, the convention adopted them unanimously.[33]
There were ten separate resolutions adopted at the convention, prefaced by a statement of necessity. The first paragraph gives the reasons for the existence of the territorial movement:
WHEREAS, The people inhabiting the territory commonly known as the Great American Basin, lying between the eastern spurs and foot hills the Sierra Nevada, west of the Goose Creek range of mountains, the Oregon line on the north, and the Colorado and its tributaries on the south, having become convinced, from the rapid increase of population within these limits, the dangers which threaten us from the numerous hostile tribes of Indians, and from the absence of all law to restrain the vicious, and to protect the upright, that some kind of government should be established as soon as possible for the better security of life and property to it.[34]
Following this reasoning, the convention resolved "that a Territorial Government should be organized within the aforesaid boundaries by Congress within the shortest possible time."[35] The second resolution provided for a memorial to the U.S. Congress and the President, James Buchanan.[36] Also, the convention resolved upon having a delegate "to visit the Federal capital, to represent the interests, wants and views of the people to the President of the United States, and to both Houses of Congress."[37] The third resolution authorized Judge Crane to perform this duty, while the fourth resolution endorsed Crane for the job.[38] The fifth resolution of the convention provided, "That for the more effectual accomplishment of the great object of this meeting, that a committee be appointed, consisting of twenty-eight persons, to manage and superintend all matters necessary and proper in the premises."[39] The sixth resolution named the members of the committee.[40] The seventh resolution invited the federal representatives of Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico and California "to use their personal and official influence with their brother Senators and Representatives in Congress to secure the passage of an Act by that body for the organization of the aforesaid Territory."[41]
The last three resolutions adopted by the convention pertained to publicity for the territorial movement. The convention requested the newspaper press of the Far West to publish the minutes of the proceedings at Genoa; and further resolved to request publication of the proceedings in Washington, New York and New Orleans newspapers.[42] Also, the convention resolved that the President and Secretaries should appoint a committee to attend to the publication of the proceedings.[43] The Memorial adopted by the convention is an interesting document. With the prospective exception of a few claims regarding the present and prospective population and resources of the proposed new Territory, the Memorial is a recitation of problems of law and order on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada:
The citizens inhabiting the valleys within the Great Basin of the American Continent, to be hereinafter described, beg leave respectfully to present for the earnest consideration of the President of the United States, and the members of both Houses of Congress this their petition; praying for the organization of a new Territory of the United States. We do not propose to come with any flourish of trumpets or multiply words in this memorial, but we propose simply to submit a few plain statements as the inducements and reasons which actuate us in making this appeal to those who have the power to remedy the existing difficulties and embarrassment under which we now labor and suffer.
A large portion of the inhabitants who make this appeal to the powers that be in Washington, have been residing within the region hereinafter described, for the last six or seven years, without any Territorial, State, or Federal protection from Indian depredations and marauding outlaws, runaway criminals and convicts, as well as other evil-doers among white men and Indians.
Those who have come into this Territory since then have and are still suffering and encountering the same difficulties which they have ever met with, and we have no reason to suppose that life and property can ever be made secure in this part of the country until some form of government shall be established by which laws may be passed and enforced upon the disobedient and vicious.
We are peaceable inhabitants and law-abiding citizens, and do not wish to see anarchy, violence, bloodshed, and crime of every hue and grade waving their horrid scepter over this portion of our common country.
In the winter-time the snows that fall upon the summits and spurs of the Sierra Nevada, frequently interrupt all intercourse and communications between the Great Basin and the State of California, and the Territories of Oregon and Washington, for nearly four months every year. During the same time all intercourse and communication between us and the civil authorities of Utah are likewise closed.
Within this space of time, and indeed from our anomalous condition during all seasons of the year, no debts can be collected by law; no offenders can be arrested, and no crime can be punished except by the code of Judge Lynch; and no obedience to government can be enforced, and for these reasons there is and can be no protection to either life or property except that which may be derived from the peaceably disposed, the good sense and patriotism of the people, or from the fearful, unsatisfactory, and terrible defense and protection which the revolver, the bowie-knife, and other deadly weapons may afford us.
Even in the spring, summer, and fall months, we are destitute of all power and means of enjoying the benefits of the local Territorial Government of Utah, to which the most of us belong, as well as the local and neighboring Government of California, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico. The distance between the Great Salt Lake City and the innumerable fertile valleys which lie along the eastern spurs and foot-hills of the Sierra Nevada, where most of the population of this section reside, is nearly 800 miles, and over this immense space there sweep two deserts. On this account no intercourse or communication of a legal or political nature is or can be held with the civil authorities of Utah. The only authority acknowledged in this part of Utah Territory, by any class of people, is that which the Church of the Latter Day Saints, whose members are generally known under the sobriquet of Mormons, exercises over its votaries and disciples. Neither they nor the Gentiles appear to look to the Territorial Government of Utah for any statutory laws for the regulation of their business or for the government of their conduct. The Mormons, in all their social affairs, conform to the general, voluntary rules and habits of life among the Gentiles, but they regulate all their business affairs, dealing and intercourse with each other by certain established rules of the church and not by any laws passed by the legislative department of the Territory.
These are but a part of the grievances under which we labor. Nearly one-half of the country in which the most of your petitioners reside, has but two Justices of the Peace and one Constable, and while no one even respects their authority, there are not perhaps fifty men in the whole county who know or care to know who they are or where they live. Should they attempt to exercise any authority, they would be regarded not only as intermeddlers but intruders. Nearly the whole region in which most of your petitioners reside, was once erected into a county called "Carson" by the Territorial Legislature of Utah, but for some reason or reasons unknown to your petitioners, the same Legislature has abolished the county organization and has established in lieu of it an election precinct -- a precinct too, in which nobody votes for an officer, and nobody cares to vote.
The present number of white inhabitants who reside within the limits of the proposed new Territory, cannot be far from 7,000 to 8,000 souls, and their numbers are rapidly increasing. As the county has no less than 200 intermediate valleys, which run into one another, of the most fertile grazing and agricultural lands as well as foot-hills, mountain spurs and mountains in which are found gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal and other minerals, metals and precious stones, we have good reason to suppose that, when they are properly explored and developed, it will be found that we possess, for its extent, one of the richest and most productive regions of the globe. As the evidence in support of these facts is known and can be known now to but a few individuals, we do not propose here to discuss the subject but rather to wait until further explorations shall develop all the necessary evidence in support of the truth of our statements. For these and many other reasons there will soon be a rush of population to this new Territory like that which rapidly poured into Texas and California in days passed; and, unless a Territorial Government or some form of government shall be established during the coming session of Congress we may expect to witness scenes of a tragical character so appalling and startling in their nature as to make every man feel that no law can or should rule but that which is enforced by the iron and savage rule of unrestrained violence and bloodshed.
There are some portions of the Great Basin of this continent, claimed by the State of California, in which reside a considerable number of people who, in the winter time, can have no connection with it. This is the case with those who reside in Honey Lake Valley. That valley lies east of the Sierra Nevadas, and within the Great Basin, and from this cause the people living in it have no intercourse with other parts of the State during the rainy season for nearly four months every year. They, therefore, naturally belong to the eastern side of the Sierra Nevadas, and on this account they desire to join us in this movement. If they are forced to remain with California they can never know anything about the affairs of their State during the whole time its Legislature may be in session. It is, therefore, folly, and worse than folly, to attach the people of this valley to a State about which they know nothing, and care nothing, for one-third of the year, and that third the most important part of it to them. They therefore cordially unite with us in this prayer and memorial to Congress, asking not only that they may be attached to the proposed new Territory, but that they may add their united voice in support of the great necessities for the organization of the aforesaid Territory.
There are others residing in the southern part of California, on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevadas, who are similarly situated during a portion of the winter months of each year. That part, also, of New Mexico, lying near the Colorado River and its tributaries, and within the Gadsden Purchase, adjacent to them, have the same difficulties of communicating with the civil authorities of New Mexico at Santa Fe, or any other local and neighboring government, that a large portion of your petitioners have to encounter in communicating with Utah, California, and Oregon in the winter season.
In addition to the facts here presented we submit that all the routes across the continent, between the Atlantic and Pacific States and Territories, will be, by the organization of this new Territory, amply guarded and protected. The population of the Indian tribes within the proposed Territory cannot be far from 75,000 to 100,000 souls, and the most of them, under proper management, could be very easily controlled if we had anything like an organized government within our limits. For these and many other cogent considerations, which will readily suggest themselves, we pray for the organization of the aforesaid Territory.[44]
The convention followed this Memorial with a description of the boundaries of the proposed new Territory, and then nominated a committee of five to circulate the petition for signatures.[45] By unanimous request, Milton S. Hall and H.P. Duskins sang the "Star Spangled Banner", and the convention adjourned.[46]
The editors of the Sacramento Union favored the Territorial movement in Western Utah, and said so in their reportage. The following editorial, published August twenty-fourth, is an example:
The population of the valley east of the Sierra Nevada is rapidly increasing. Numbers of the emigrants of this season are stopping there and taking up farms. Maj. Ormsby and Judge Crane both pronounce the land in Carson, Eagle, Washo and Honey Lake Valleys to be of a very fine quality. In Carson there are now thousands upon thousands of acres of land where the grass, flowers and weeds are so high that when cattle are lying down they are nearly hid from the view of the herdsman. The grass there, as well as in the mountains, looks green, fresh and inviting.
They also speak in high terms of the climate, and the advantages which are there offered to the emigrant seeking land upon which to build a home for himself and family. The people there are not troubled with Mexican grants; the land is all public -- all belongs to the United States.
As will be seen by reading their memorial to the President and Congress, the people there have taken the initiative towards the formation of a new Territory from the western portion of Utah. Strong reasons are presented in the memorial why such a Territory should be organized. Indeed they seem to us unanswerable.
From Salt Lake to Carson Valley the distance is nearly or quite eight hundred miles by the emigrant travel, and by any route it is too distant to be governed by a Governor and Territorial Legislature located at Salt Lake City. Particularly is this the case when we take into consideration the fact that deserts intervene.
The boundary proposed on the east side will be, for most of the distance, a natural one, as it will run for a long distance along the edge or immediately on a desert, which never can be cultivated. On the west side, it would be bounded by the snow-capped Sierra Nevada. Probably on the south they should not have gone south or east of the Colorado, as efforts are now making at Washington to organize the Territory of Arizona, which would extend from the Rio Grande to the east line of California.
Until they can obtain at the hands of Congress an organized Territory, the people in those valleys east of the Sierra Nevada must make and administer their own laws. They are now literally without government and without law. We hope their prayer will receive a favorable consideration at the hands of Congress. Judge James M. Crane has been appointed Territorial Agent to go to Washington.[47]
Despite support from the Union and other newspapers on the Pacific Coast, the Territorial movement of 1857-1858 was not successful in getting formal recognition from the United States Congress. Although the Committee of Territories reported favorably on a bill drafted to create a new Territory out of Western Utah, the bill was not taken up on the floor of the House of Representatives.[48] Thus, the residents of Western Utah were left to fend for themselves.

[1] Sacramento Union 20 May 1856:3; Western Standard 24 May 1856:3; Fariss & Smith, Illustrated History of Plumas, Lassen & Sierra Counties, With California From 1513 to 1850, Fariss & Smith, San Francisco: 1882, pps. 344-346.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. Fariss & Smith, Illustrated History of Plumas, Lassen & Sierra Counties reproduces this document on pps. 344-346.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Fariss & Smith, Illustrated History of Plumas, Lassen & Sierra Counties, pps. 344-346.
[7] Ibid., p. 346.
[8] Ibid., p. 347.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Sacramento Union 2 May 1857:2. William B. "Lucky Bill" Thorington and M.W. Wheeler were elected delegates, but John A. "Snowshoe" Thompson replaced Thorington at the Mokelumne Hill Convention (Sacramento Union 4 May 1857:1).
[11] Sacramento Union 11 May 1857:2; 12 May 1857:2; 13 May 1857:2; 25 May 1857:2; 27 May 1857:3. Major William M. Ormsby and others involved themselves in promoting this road.
[12] Sacramento Union 13 Jun 1857:3; 15 Jun 1857:2; 16 Jun 1857:2; 17 Jun 1857:2; 23 Jun 1857:2; 24 Jun 1857:4.
[13] Sacramento Union 15 Jun 1857:1; 16 Jun 1857:2; 23 Jun 1857:2.
[14] Sacramento Union 9 Jun 1857:2; 12 Jun 1857:4; 15 Jun 1857:2; 29 Jun 1857:4; 1 Jul 1857:4; 7 Jul 1857:2; 13 Jul 1857:1&4; 15 Jul 1857:1; 20 Jul 1857:3; 27 Jul 1857:3; 1 Aug 1857:2; 8 Aug 1857:2; 10 Aug 1857:1; 21 Aug 1857:3; 24 Aug 1857:1&2; Angel, Myron (ed.) History of Nevada With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers, Thompson & West, Oakland: 1881, p. 42.
[15] Sacramento Union 22 Sept 1857:2; Angel, History of Nevada, p. 624.
[16] Letters from James M. Crane, Sacramento Union 13 Jul 1857:4.
[17] Sacramento Union 1 Jul 1857:4.
[18] Placerville Mountain Democrat 5 Sept 1857:2; Sacramento Union 3 Aug 1857:2; 10 Aug 1857:1; 17 Sept 1857:2.
[19] Sacramento Union 6 Aug 1857:3; 8 Aug 1857:2.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Sacramento Union 6 Aug 1857:3; 8 Aug 1857:2.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Sacramento Union 24 Aug 1857:1; Angel, History of Nevada, pps. 42-45.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Sacramento Union 24 Aug 1857:1.
[32] Ibid.; Angel, History of Nevada, pps. 42-45.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid. The Territorial Convention agreed upon boundaries for the Memorial to the U.S. Congress, "as the most practicable and appropriate for the proposed new Territory:--"
Beginning on the northwest on a line of 4° north latitude, and longitude 120°, thence following the Oregon and Utah boundary line on a direct east course to longitude 116°, thence a southeast course to about north latitude 38° and longitude 114°, thence further on in the same direction to north latitude 34° and longitude 112°, thence almost a due south course to the boundary line between the State of Sonora, in the Republic of Mexico, and the Territory of New Mexico, thence along that line to the eastern boundary of California, and thence along the latter line to the place of beginning.
[36] Sacramento Union 24 Aug 1857:1; Angel, History of Nevada, pps. 42-45.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid. After addressing a mass meeting of the citizens of Honey Lake Valley convened in support of the territorial movement at Carson Valley, Judge Crane crossed the mountains into California. His ship left San Francisco for Washington D.C. on November fifth, 1857. (Sacramento Union 19 Oct 1857:2.)
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid. These persons were Maj. Isaac Roop, Peter Lassen, Cutler Arnold, Wm. Hill [Naileigh], L.C. McMurtry, Dr. B.L. King, Martin Stebbins, Maj. Wm. M. Ormsby, James McMarlin, Dr. C.D. Daggett, Col. John Reese, Col. Wm. Rogers, Isaac Farwell, Daniel Woodford, Thomas J. Singleton, Noses Job, Wm. B. "Lucky Bill" Thorington, Orrin Gray, D.E. Gilbert, Solomon Perrin, James Quick, Jefferson Atchison, Samuel Blackford, T.J. Hall, James McIntyre, S. Stevenson and. M. Smith.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Sacramento Union 24 Aug 1857:1; Angel, History of Nevada, pps. 42-45.
[43] Ibid. A mass meeting of the citizens of Honey Lake Valley, held October third, 1857, approved, endorsed and confirmed the proceedings of the earlier mass meeting in Carson Valley to petition the U.S. Congress for territorial status. The preamble and resolutions of this meeting, which was addressed by James N Crane, were published in the Sacramento Union 19 Oct 1857:1. See also San Francisco Herald 22 Oct 1857:2
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid. For a description of the proposed boundaries see Note 35. The members of the committee were W.W. Nicols, R.D. Sides, Orrin Gray, J.K. Trumbo and Col. Wm. "Uncle Billy" Rogers.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Sacramento Union 24 Aug 1857:2. In addition, Wm. M. Ormsby and Martin Smith, acting as Carson Valley Commissioners, delivered the following petition to the Legislature of California in January, 1858:
To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of California:
The people living in that portion of the continent lying between the Goose Creek range of mountains on the east, and the Sierra Nevada on the west; the Oregon and Utah line on the north, and the Colorado river on the south, have appointed us their Commissioners to submit the following petition to the honorable the Legislature of California, asking and praying that the State shall cede and transfer all of her real and supposed interest and jurisdiction over territory situated on the eastern side of the Sierra range of mountains, and supposed to be by some within the limits of the State of California. Our object in asking for this cession and transfer of jurisdiction is for the following reasons:
1st. That the said spurs, foothills and valleys may be incorporated in the proposed new Territory.
2d. Because, in the Winter season, the snows on the Sierra Nevada fall so deep and remain for so long a time as to close all intercourse and communication across the mountains, between those residing on both sides of it for the space of about four months every year.
There are many considerations why this memorial should receive the approval of the Legislature. The true boundary between the State of California and the Territory of Utah has never been officially determined, and it is to be regretted that this question has been permitted to rest so long in doubt. Up to this day California has never, by any Act of the Legislature, attempted to extend her jurisdiction beyond the main summit of the Sierra Nevada eastward to the Great Basin. Indeed, El Dorado and one or two other counties have, on one or more occasions, excluded votes given by actual residents of the valleys east of the mountains, for State and county officers, on the ground that the said voters were not living within the limits of the State of California. Up to July last all departments of Government, State and county uniformly considered and acted upon the conviction that the main summit of the Sierra Nevada was the true and lawful boundary line between the State of California and the Territory of Utah. Until then, none of the county officials of this State ever sought for any alliance and connection with the people inhabiting any portion of the Great Basin. The people and the Government Agents of Utah have likewise acted upon the conviction that the western boundary of the Territory extended to the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. Heretofore, then, there has been a tacit, if not an express understanding that the Sierra Nevada was not only the natural boundary, but the legitimate boundary between said State and Territory. Eddy's map was for many years the official map of the State of California. This map placed Honey Lake on the western side of the Sierra Nevada, say some forty miles distant from summit. The present official map of the State (Mr. Goddard's) very correctly places Honey Lake on the eastern side of the mountains, but at the same time extends the State boundary a very considerable distance east of Honey Lake. It is to be presumed that neither of the authors of these maps ever saw Honey Lake or the country adjacent. Thus it will be seen that the official maps of California not only have differed as to the topography of the country -- the location of one of the most noted lakes west of the Rocky Mountains -- but that the Legislature has never, up to this time, had in its possession any correct topographical and geographical account of the country in question, nor any official longitudinal guide for determining the true eastern boundary of the State. The observations taken and the surveys made by Lieut. Beckwith, Mr. Marlett[e] and Mr. Kirk, however correct, are not binding on the parties interested and their acts can, therefore, have no influence upon the questions of State boundary and jurisdiction. The true boundary line must be run by Commissioners appointed by the State of California and the Territory of Utah. This is the way all questions about boundaries are settled. Unless the State of California shall withdraw its jurisdiction over this Territory, or the boundary line is amicably settled, we may expect to have endless disputes and difficulties. Nothing good can come from leaving this question undetermined.
The second reason offered in this petition, why the State of California should withdraw or surrender its jurisdiction over this territory, ought, we think; to have much favor with the Legislature. The inhabitants residing on both sides of the Sierra Nevada, during three or four months every year, have no intercourse or communication with one another. The snows which fall upon the main summit of the Sierra Nevada, as well as the chief spurs of the mountain, are frequently, during the entire months of December, January, February and March, found to be, in many places, from twenty to thirty feet deep. These immense fields of snow rarely ever begin to melt until April, and then it requires full one month longer before the main roads across the mountains are sufficiently free from snow, mud and other obstructions, to afford a safe and easy transit to and from California and Utah. The period of the year when these obstructions effectively close all intercourse between the people on both sides of the mountain, is the most important, of all others, to those on the Eastern side. Then the Legislature of this State is in session; and; for the reason above stated, it is evident the people living on the Eastern side of the Sierra Nevada can have no communication with their Representatives, or be heard in favor or against any measure which might concern them. The Legislature might, under such circumstances, unintentionally or through the misrepresentations of interested, venal and designing men, do great wrong and injustice to these remote people. Indeed, from their position it is manifest that they can have no voice in the Legislature. We think, therefore, that it would be the part of wisdom, as well as of humanity, for this State to withdraw its jurisdiction over territory it cannot superintend, and the inhabitants of which it is physically impossible, at all times, to guard and protect, or even legislate for safely and intelligently.
There is one other subject connected with this question, which, it appears to your Commissioners, should address itself strongly to a favorable consideration of the Legislature. The boundary line between California and Utah, as laid down on Mr. Goddard's map (and, we believe, the official map of the State), is perhaps the most unnatural and the most unsatisfactory that could be established. If this line is insisted on, and adhered to, it will be found that, as soon as the valleys on the eastern side of the mountains become generally settled, there will be constant strife and altercations between the people and officers of this State and those of Utah. This line follows no stream or highlands, but along the centers of valleys. This state of things would often place a man's residence in California, and his farm in Utah, and vice versa. The true boundary line between California and the Great Basin has been established by mature, and there is perhaps no intelligent man living who, from a personal examination of this great natural boundary, would not consider it one of the most perfect that could be offered between the States and Territories. This natural boundary is the crest of the main summit of the Sierra Nevada. Almost at any point along this vast summit you can behold the waters running east and west, down both sides of the mountain. In some places these springs are not over one hundred and fifty yards apart, and many of them are the headwaters of the large rivers. Those running to the west flow into the Pacific ocean, and those running east flow into the Great Basin of the continent, and there sink. Even the waters of Lake Bigler, lying between what are called the First or Eastern and the Second or Western summits of the Sierra Nevada, empty into the Great Basin. At this point it is said that the great Sierra range of mountains has two summits; but the second summit forms no obstacle to the passage of the waters of lakes Bigler and Smith, as well as other tributaries flowing into the Great Basin. Indeed, none of the waters within the basin formed by the two summits flow into the Pacific. What is therefore called the Second, Eastern or Utah summit, is nothing more than one of the chief spurs of the Sierra Nevada. As the main summit, then, forms the dividing line between the waters emptying into the Pacific Ocean and the Great Basin, it appears to us that this immense summit chain is, and of rights should be, the true, natural and legitimate boundary between the State of California and the Territory of Utah.
The right of the Legislature to pass such an Act as we have prayed for is unquestionable. The Constitution of the United States, in Art. IV and Sec. 8, provides that "new States may be admitted by Congress into the Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of Congress." This section clearly points out the manner in which a State may withdraw its jurisdiction from a portion of its territory, in order that a new State or Territorial Government may be formed.
It is understood, however, that the consent of Congress shall be procured by which the Government of such Territory shall pass immediately under the jurisdiction of the United States. This section was incorporated into the Federal Constitution so as to afford full protection to the inhabitants who were residents of the country ceded to the United States by the State of Virginia; and also, that new States might be formed, with the consent of the Legislature of the State concerned, out of territory the property of the States. Thus Georgia, by her Legislature, in 1802, granted territory to the Federal Government; and Virginia, by her Legislature in 1789, passed an Act consenting, with the concurrence of Congress, that a new State might be formed out of her territory, to be called 'Kentucky."
The authority to exercise this right was of much more consequence to the States than can be the satisfaction of the people residing in the Great Basin to obtain from the Legislature of this State the privilege of incorporating a few valleys into our proposed new Territory. The Legislatures of Virginia, Georgia, etc., in the examples above referred to, did more for, and gave more to, the young and rising States and Territories which surrounded them, than we dare ask, or even expect from the Legislature of California. They not only yielded up all jurisdictional control over the Territory, but they parted with their title to the property, and conferred it, along with their political jurisdiction, to the General Government, to be sold for the common benefit of the whole Union. Since these examples were set, all States have been admitted into the Union under the express condition that the lands within the State boundary and the property of the United States shall be free from all local legislative control.
That portion of the territory from which your petitioners desire the Legislature to withdraw her jurisdiction, is still the property of the United States. The amount of territory is small, and California can lose nothing by parting with it. Nearly all the country out of which we propose to establish a new Territory is within the limits of Utah and New Mexico. The Legislatures of these Territories, however, it is not necessary for us to consult, as Congress has the undoubted right to repeal, amend, or in any other way qualify or change the organic law of these Territories. As the proposed new Territory lies just in the rear of this State, and must, from position as well as from the people who are to settle upon it, work its rich mines and cultivate its productive valleys, soon become 'bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh,' it is to be presumed that California should feel a strong interest in its prosperity. The new Territory must ever be a helpmate to this State --must contribute much to her revenues and internal and external commerce. The young and rising States and Territories on this side of the continent have much to expect from California. She is a settled and established State, and, withal, young and vigorous. Let her, then, give all proper aid and encouragement to those who are seeking admission among the family of States in this part of the country.
Trusting that our petition may find favor in the wisdom and patriotism of the Legislature, we beg to subscribe ourselves, your much obliged fellow citizens,
W.M. Ormsby }
} Commissioners.
Martin Smith }
This petition, and the minor debate which followed its introduction and reading, are reproduced in the Sacramento Union 28 Jan 1858:1; see also the Sacramento Union 29 Jan 1858:2 for a balanced editorial, and a letter from "Philo" of Carson Valley, unfavorable to the memorial and published in the Union of 2 Mar 1858:3.
[48] Swackhamer, William D., Political History of Nevada 1979, State Printing Office, Carson City: 1979, p. 52. For the favorable action of the House Committee on Territories, see "Territory of Nevada", House Report No. 375, 35th Cong., 1st Session, Serial 966.
Hon. William "Extra Billy" Smith, Congressman from Virginia, was a leading supporter of the Nevada Territorial legislation, H.R. 567, in the Thirty-sixth Congress. Austin E. Smith of California, was mentioned as a possible Governor of the proposed Territory. The House Committee on Territories, in Report No. 375, recommended passage of the bill. So did the State Legislature of California, in a resolution sent to the U.S. Congress (Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 17, Thirty-sixth Congress, First Session, Serial 1038). According to an article in the Washington (D.C.) Union: "It was apparent that a very strong feeling prevailed in Congress, before its recent adjournment, in favor of creating some provisional form of government, either by the grant of a Territorial Act, or otherwise, for the settlers in Carson Valley; but the pressure of business during the last few weeks of the session prevented any action on the subject. It will doubtless be considered early in the next session, and some proper law be passed that will meet the demands of the settlers in this beautiful Valley" (reprinted in the Sacramento Union 31 Jul 1858:2). For further notes on the progress of the territorial movement in the U.S. Congress see the Sacramento Union 18 Jan 1858:2; 20 Feb 1858:2; 1 Mar 1858:3; 2 Apr 1858:1; 1 May 1858:1&3; 6 May 1858:4; 17 May 1858:1; 18 Jun 1858:1; 23 Jun 1858:2; 1 Jul 1858:1; 16 Jul 1858:1.
Chapter I: The Settlers' Government; Chapter II: Carson County, Utah Territory; Chapter III: The Nataqua and Sierra Nevada Territorial Movements; Chapter IV: The Carson Valley People's Court; Chapter V: Rival Governments; Chapter VI: Nevada Territorial Movement and Provisional Government; Chapter VII: Mining District Governments