Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1857-06-24
EXTRACT.
From Speech delivered in the State
House At Springfield, Illinois, on
the 18th, Of June 1857, by

HoN STEPHEN A. DouGLAs.
Condition of affairs in Utah.
(CosciSdsd.)
0 The territorial government onc'
abolished. the country would revert tt
its primitive condition prior to the &C
Of 1850, under the sole and exclusive
, Jurisdiction Of the United States," ant
: should be placed under the operation
Of the act Of Congress Of the 3Oth Of
April, 1890, and the various acts sup
elemental thereof, providing for ths
punishment Of crimes against the
United States within any fort, arsenal,
dockysrd, magazine or Any oTHgE
PLACE OR DISTRICT or COUNTRY, UNDER
THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction
Of the United States" All offences
against the provisions Of these acts are
required by law TO be tried and punish
ed by the United States courts in the
States or territories where the often
ders shall be 'rIRsr APPRgHENDED ON
BROUGHT FOR TRIAL" Thus it will be
seen that under the plan proposed,
brigham Young and his coafederates
could be "spprehended and brought for
trial" to Iowa or Missouri, California
or Oregon, or TO any other adjacent
State or territory, where a fair trial
could be had, and justice administered
impartially - where the witnesses
could be protected aud the judgment
Of the court could be carried into exc
cution, without violence or intimida-
ton. l do not propose to introduce
any new principles into our jurispru-
dencc, nor to change the modes of
proceeding or the rules Of practice in
our courts. | only propose to place
the district of country embraced with
in the territory of Utah under the op-
Grafton of the same laws and rules Of
proceeding, that Kansas, Nebraska,
Minnesota and our other territories
were placed before they became organ
lied territories. The whole country
embraced within those territories was
under the operation Of that same sys-
tenn of laws, and all the offences COM
mittcd within the same were punished
in the manner now proposed, SO long
as the country remained "under the
sole and exclusive jurisdiction Of the
United States but the moment the
country was organized into territorial
governments, with Legislative, execu
tive and Judicial departments, it ceased
to be under the sole and exclusive jur-
isdiction of the United States, within
the meaning OF the act OF Congress,
for the reason that it had passed under
another and different Jurisdiction
Hence, if We abolish the territorial
government Of Utah, preserving all ex
isting rights, and place the country
under the sole and exclusive jurisdic
ton of the United States, offenders
can be apprchcndcd and brought into
the adjacent States or territories fol
punishment, in the same manner and
under the same rules and regulations
which obtained and have been uniform
ly practiced, under like circumstances,
since 1890.
If the plan proposed shall be found
an effective and adequate remedy for
the evils complained of in Utah, no
one, no matter what his political creed
or partizan associations, need be ap-
prchensivc that it will violate any cher
ished theory or constitutional right in
regard to the government Of the Ter
ritories. 1t is great mistake to sup
pose that all the territory or land be-
longing tc the United States must ne
ccsarily be governed by the same laws
and under the same clause Of the con-
stitution, without reference to the pur-
pose to which it is dedicated or the
use which it is proposed to make of
it, while all that portion Of country
which is or shall be set apart to be-
come new States, must necessarily be
governed under and consistent with
that clause Of the constitution which
authorizes Congress to admit new
States, it does not follow that other
territory, not intended to be organized
and admitted into the Union as States,
must be governed under the same
clause Of the constitution, with all the
rights Of self government and State
equality. For instance, If we should
purchase Vancouver's Island from
Great Britain, for the purpose Of re-
moving all the Indians from our Pa
cific territories and locating them on
that Isl and as their permanent home,
with guarantees that it should never
be settled or occupied by white men,
will it be contended that the purchase
should be made and the island govern
cd under the power to admit new
States when it was not acquired for
that purpose nor intended to be appli-
cd to that object! Being acquired
for Indian purposes and applied to In
dian porposes, is it not more reasona-
bic to assume that the power to acquire
WAS derived from the Indian clause,
and the island must necessarily be gov
| cIuCu uuOcI 6uu COuStStCut WIN Su0t
clause Of the constitution which rels ties
to Indian affairs. Again, suppose we
should deem it expedient to buy a
small island in the Mediterranean OF
in the Caribbean sea, for q naval sta
ton, can it be said with any force OF
plausibility that the purchase should
be made or the island governed under
the power to admit new States On
the contrary, is it not obvious that the
right to acquire and govern in tha.
case is derived from the power to
provide and maintain q navy" and
must be exercised consistent With that
power. Soft we purchase land for forts
arsenals, or other military purposes, ol
set apart and dedicate any territory
which we now own for a military res
ervation, it Immediately passes under
the military power, ;ud must be gov
erned in harmony with it. So if land
be purchased for . mint, it must be
governed under the power to coin
money; or, if purchased for . post