Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-04-16
aNortester 9allp Spp.
THE POLYGAMY QUESTION.
SPEECH OF HON. ELI THAYER
OF MASSACHUSETTS,
In the House of Representatives, April 8, 1860.

rConcludedl
L feel perfectly secure, then in the position
that Mormonism and polyganly, and ali tbinns
connected herewith, should be left to the local
laws OF the two land districts which | propose.
by the action Of Congress, to establish. Now,
sir, Is 1t safe to leave polygamy to the cure of
democracy Is it safe to leave it to repub-
lcan form OF government, made by the people
themselves, in these two land districts Every
man acquainted with the history of the world
Knows that poygaHly never has existed under
democratic or republican form of govern
ment Every man who knows anything, even
WITHOUT reading history, would decide before
hams that it could never exist under such a
form OF government while the sexes continue
to be equal in numbers. Wherever it has eX-
listed i'll Turkey, in Arabia, among the chiefs
in central Africa, or among the aborgines OF
America-it has always been protected by alb
soute military dcspotism. 1t can be sustained
% under no other system of government.
- Then l hold that the argument is conclu-
sive, that, by subjecting poly gamy to the action
of the democracy Of these two land districts it
would most effectualy put an end to it, and
therefore Is one reason | should vote for the
amendment to the bill as l have proposed it,
But 1t may be inquired, why we do not or
ganize the Territories of jefferson and Nevada
instead OF simply constituting them land dis
Now, sir, L am going to give my own views
upon the subject; and l am going TO say, for
the amendment which | have proposed that it
neither atfirms nor denies the power of Con-
gresS to legislate for the Territories But
while pursueing that course, still hold my
own views upon the subjert but if inquired
of why | would not vote for a Territorial Or
ganizat'on, my answer is ready that am OPP
posed to the whole policy of organizing Terri
tories of this Federal Government | say here
and now, that | will never vote-as | believe
have never voted in the past-to organize any
Territory under this Government 1; neither
would acquire another foot of land TO be gov
erned by the Congress of the United States, or
to be sold by the authorities of this Govern
ment. The purposes of this Government are
few and simple, as has been before said il this
Hall. 1t is no part OF the purpose for which
this Government was organized, to exercise
nonresident jurisdiction or traffic in real estate:
and therefore l am for getting rid of the nui-
sance, and of combining the government to its
Legitimate purposes as soon as we can possibly
do it, Therefore, again, am opposed to the
organization Of any more territories and of in
augurating again the old policy of the govern
ment, which has led to all the sectional quar-
rels which have existed, and now exist, be-
tween the states of the Union | tell you. we
cannot afford to spend the time of this nation
in quarrelng about these provinces, which the
constitution does not know. The CONSTITUTE n
knows nothing less than state; and why
should we be forever quarreling about terrific
ries ? Sir, am so much popular sovereign
ty man, that deny that congress can, by an
organic act, bestow sovereignty upon the peo-
pie of territory.
Mr.. SMITH OF Vrginia-Let me ask the
gentleman question. The gentleman SAYS
flla Dstif tim not
else than state. Then what does he think
of that clause of the constitution which gives
to congress the power to dispose of the terrific.
ry and other property of the United States
Mr.. THAYER-l ought to have said, as a
political community. The constitution speaks
Of territory as property, as land but, sir, as
political community, it knows nothing less
than state. Hereafter, as member of con-
gress, will know nothing less than state.
am opposed even to granting permission to any
territory to make any laws, or to manage its
own affairs in its own way. Why should the
citizens of Maine and Connecticut, and Geor-
gia and South Carolina and the other states,
insult their equals in the territories by the IA
vor OF granting them permission, through con-
gress, to govern themselves? Is man who
was citizen Of Iowa yesterday, and is to-day
an inhabitant of Neqraska, less than the equal
OF him who remains citizen and inhabitant
of Iowa? How and why is his right of self
government impaired No man can tell IT,
then, he is the equal of any citizen of the
states it must be conceded there is no occasion
for the citizens of the states to graciously
grant him equality of right.
No, sir to grant permission to territory to
make its own laws, implies authority which
never rightfully existed in congress 1t i'm
plies the same authority as to command or to
withhold permission. | will never vote such
an insult to my fellow citizens in q territory
They are my equals in every right under this
government. have Just as good reason and
authority to grant permission to their fellow
citizens in the states to govern themselves as
we in the states have to grant this permission
by act of congress to them.
Mr.. SMITH Of Virginia. want to ask an
other question. If congress has no power over
the territory of the United States, except as
property-not as political community
congress has no power over the people OF a
territory.
Mr.. THAYER-Exactly, sir. 1t may be
that, under the construction of the constitution
which has obtained, Congress would really
be decided to have the same right to govern
the people that George Ill had to govern these
colonies. | deny that it has now or ever had
any moral right to govern American citizens
in the territories. To he explicit if Congress
has the right where did it get it Congress is
the servant and not the king of the people.
The people, Mr.. Speaker, in this country, are
king There is no other. Nobody else has
the attribute of sovereignty. Ii Congress can
dispense sovereignty, certainly Congress has
either acquired that sovereignty or has created
it. Nobody believes that Congress creates
sovereignty. Ii Congress acquired it, then
when and where did it acquire it Even the
Church of Rome, absolute as is her authority
proposes to give a reason for what she has and
what she diSpenses. When that church sells
indulgences, she declares that she only sells the
superintendent merits of the saints so that
men that are not as good as they ought to be,
may have their deficiencies made up by men
who are better than they need to be. Laugh
ter would like to know where this super
abundant sovereignty comes from, that Con-
greSs can dispense it. Only think what a
reservoir of sovereignty this Congress must
be, which has dispensed or preends to dis
penSe sovereignty to twenty sovereign states
since the formation Of this government, and
has never had any sovereignty ITSELF except
what it must have acquired from the sovereign
people OF this country. The fact is, Congress
has never bestowed sovereignty upon one OF
them 1t has only rclinqushed the sovereign
ty which il has has usurped and withheld.
No, sir, this thing is mistake. 1t is worse
it is fiction it is iaIlacy. The gentle
man from Alabama, Mr. Curyl the other
day, wondered by what hocus pocaS by wha
ileeerdemain, that which is to-day public land
becomes tomorrow sovereignty. Public
land does not become sovereignty. Land
never becomes a sovereignty. Mon are the
sovereigns.
II there is unoccupied public land to-day
ana tomorrow there is a sovereignty upon it
assure you that somebody has gone there
some citizen, who is himself so much aboy,