Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-04-16
zou r11 rHAYER,s SPEECH.

frst mage, this morning. we give the
saI,,sion of Hon Eli Thayer's speech on the
,,oIygamy question. He opposed the bill pro-
bbiting polygamy in Utah, and, in this speech,
we have statement of his reasons for doing
50. 1t will be seen that Mr. Thayer has pc
culiar doctrine of popular sovereignty which
controls and regulates his action on such ques-
tons. He holds that Congress should not
legislate for the territories, nor presume even
to organize territorial government In MS
opinion, Congress should do nothing more IN
relation to the unorganized territories than Gre
ate Gland districts" require the appointment
of surveyors, and arrange for the establish
ment of land offices for the sale of land, leaving
the settlers to organize their own government
and manage their affairs in their own way
This is not a scheme which he merely sug-
cests for the consideration of his political as
socates, but his favorite measure, the only
scheme for territorial arrangements that can
have his support in Congress.
Appended to this speech is proposed amend
ment to the bill that was under consideration,
in which Mr.. Thayer gives his measure for
suppressing polygamy in Utah. He proposes
to have congress create two Gland districts,
and, by this means, divide the political COM
munity known as Utah between the settlers in
Carson Valley and those at Pixies Peak.
Pixies Peak is some ten or twelve days jour
ney, in one direction, and Carson Valley as far
off in the other 1t seems not to occur to Mr..
Thayer, that to make such a division of Utah
and compel all parties to accept it submissive
ly, would imply in congress the very highest
style of congressional authority over the ter
ritories. If congress can do that, it is not very
considerate or proper to say it has no authori-
ty to proaibit polygamy or slavery in Utah.
He goes entirely beyond himself and brushes
out his own doctrine.
The doctrine that Congress has authority to
prohibit slavery and other barbarisms in the
territories, is as old as the republic. 1t was
introduced by the men who framed the federal
constitution, and was applied by them to al
the territory then under the federal jurisdic-
ton 1t is principal doctrine of the repub-
ican party. We can not escape from it. We
can not lay it aside, if we would, for the fede
raj governments control of the unorganized
territory under its jurisdiction must always
mean good deal more than permission to
create land districts and sell land. 1t does
actually mean jurisdiction, and not the mere
mockery OF it. Suppose company of immi-
grants from Europe should settle somewhere
on our unoccupied territory and establish
there all the anti.republican peculiarites of
the feudal system, as they exist in Russia,
with a hereditary great baron for governor.
Would there be no right in Congress to inter
fere? 1t would be absurd to deny such
right, for it ever must be the duty OF Congress
to provide that anti-republican and barbarous
institutions shall not grow up in the new CON-
munities within our national jurisdiction, that
are finally to be received into the Union as
states.
The difficulty encountered in dealing with
the Mormons, arises in great measure from the
fact that very large proportion of them are
not Americans. They are natives of Wales
England, Sweden, Denmark, and other coun
tries in Europe. They are ignorant and ia
natical and, on this side of the Atlantic they
are acquainted with nothing but Mormondon
and the sovereignty of Brigham Young Il
the duty of the general government to that
community had been faithfully performed
from the outset, its condition now would be
very different. But, neglect has not lessened
obligation, and Utah must be changed,-mus
&c ase to be a community in which republican
institutions can not operate. Honest laws
with honest and honorable men for judges
and executive officers in Utah, would easily
acco mplish what has sometimes seemed i'm
possible. And in New Mexico, too where
the federal oficeholders have contrived to gel
territorial legislation in favor of slavery, in
defiance of popular sentiment, there is need
of congressional interference.
Mr.. Thayer's doctrine, we believe, is pecu-
liar to himself. We are not aware of its being
entertained by any other member of Congress.
1t has sometimes been proposed to frame the
congressional acts organizing territories so as
allow the people to choose their own governor;
but, nobody save Mr. Thayer has proposed to
leave the territories without organization, and
allow them to become whatever the first set
tlers-Mormons, Shareholders, or any other
class-may choose to make them. There is
nothing so unlikely to be adopted by congress
as this view of territorial policy; and as we
have seen, Mr.. Thayer himself pushes away it,
foundations when he proposes to divide til,
territory of Utah. 1t becomes to him sui
hcient reason for opposing congressional legis
lation against slavery in the territories, ant
this appears to be its only practical effect
And we will add, that in urging it in congress
he fails to represent the republican sentimen
in his district