The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-03-02

not be tried by one who is living in pO-
lygamOuS relations, but may be tried by
one who having one wife is living In
adulterOus relations. l submit that
they are at least sufficiently con-
nected as that they ought to be provided
for in this bill or else the rule alluded
to by my friend from Georgia, ex-
PressiO unius est exclusiO alterius, will
apply.
Now, Mr.. President. this hill being
crimes act and in amendment to Il
crimes act, and defining still more
rigidly than heretofore the variOus
crimes named in the crimes act, and
defining also the qualifications of
Jurors who are To try the crimes men
toned in this act, goes on to say:
"That any polvgamist, bigamist, or
any person cOhabiting with more than
one wOmln, shall not be competent to
vote or to hold Office"
These are the very crimes defined in
this act. they are the very crimes
which are now to be punished. The
bill provides that men who are guilty of
these things, now made crimes for the
first time, shall be disqualified from
voting and from holding Office. When
/ find a provision of this kind in a
Territories, not in an act establishing
governments for Territories, but in
crimes act following upon the delini
tiOn of new crimes, following upon the
prescription of puniShmentS, following
upon the clauses which provide the
qualifications of jurors for the trying of
these crimes IA provision of the bill
which disqUaiifes as voters and as
OtHce-hOlders, the very men whom il
has defined as criminals in the earlier
sections, / can not resist the conclusion
that it has at its foundation an inten-
tiOn to punish by this disqualification
the men who are gUiltYO of these crimes,
lean not resist the conclusion that the
foundation of this bill, the idea that
lies at its groundwork, is that these
are crimes now to be defined, and to be
punished not only by Imprisonment
and fine, but by deprivation of the
right of voting and the right of holding
office. | say when that is to be done ii
is an essential principle of our justice
that this punishment shall be inflicted
only after conviction.
1t is nothing to say that originally
Congress might define the qualifica-
tiOns of voters; they did so. 1t is moth
ing to say that if they were establish
ing a new government now, they might
define the qualifications of voters
They might. That is not descriptive of
this bill; that is not the provision of
this bill. / find, as | said, that it is an
TO a crimes act, pursuing
the provisions of crimes act, defining
crimes. providing their punishment,
jurors by which they shall
be tried. 1T provides that the punish
ment shall be by fine, by imprisonment,
and by diSfranchiSement. COuiessedly
under the Constitution of the Uuited
States. specifically under the prOvis-
ions % this bill, the punishment Of fine
and Imprisonment can be inflicted only
after indictment, trial, and conviction,
by a court of competent jurisdiction,
and after the accused shall have had the
benefit of the process Of the court, of
confronting witnesses, of cross eXamin- |
alton, Of an impartial iuTy-shall have
had the benefit of all the safeguards
which an enlighteded Jurisprudence
throws around him who is charged with
crime. Why should the punishment of
disfranchisement be imposed under less
stringent conditions? These men are
citizens of the United States. The
mantle of the Constitution enfOlds
them. They are entitled under the law
to vote; to hold Office. They have al
ways voted and held Office. They do 50
now. Y u define crime; you charge
Iltll Will IL. lou say, II SullIy Juey
shall be fined, imprisoned, deprived of
these rights which they have enjoyed
and do still enjoy. You say-this bill
Says-they shall be fined and impris-
Oned only after conviction, under the
guardianship of the law and its COURTS
but they shall be diSfranchised on the
finding of political returning board
board organized, as this bill clearly
shows, for the express purpose of dis
franchiSing as many Of these people as
ii can. | do not think, Mr.. President,
that that can stand for one moment
No ingenuity, however acute, can make
us believe that this was intended to APP
pear on its face to be bill for the re-
organization of the political govern
ment of any one Territory Of all the
Territories of the United States, and
the declaration Of the fundamental law
upon which these new civil commune
ties are to be built up. On the other
hand, no ingenuity can make us be-
lieve that this bill will not, in effect, if
carried out under the guise Of prOvid-
ing punishment for crime, Overturn
the political system of a Territory.
l would not introduce political con
sideratiOns into this discussion, but
can not shut my eyes to the fact that
this bill, if it becomes law, will trans
fer the political power of the Territory
to the Republican party-a party which
has 800 votes out of 1900, and its
friends know that fact full well.
The Senator from Missouri has pur-
sued the discussion of this violation of
private right so far that 1 do not In
tend to enter upon ground so well Oc-
cupied by him. Let me call the atten-
tiOn of the Senator from Vermont, who
has charge Of this bill, to the answer
that he made to the Senator from GeOr-
gia when he quoted from Burrill's law
the definition of pOlyga-
mist or bigamist. The definition there
is: ''a man who has had'-nOt who has,
but who "has had-twO wives or more
wives" That is bigamy or pOlygamy.
His law dictionary, cited by himself as
authority appTOvingly, defines pOlyga-
mist as one who at any time in his life
has had more than two wives living at
the same time. think this section is
therefore not only liable to the criti-
cism that was made upon it by the Sen
atOr from Georgia, but it is liable to a
further criticism which was originally
made by the Senator from Missouri
early this morning, that if man has
been once guilty of the crime Of pOlyg-
amy or bigamy he can thereafter never
be entitled to sit upon jury or vote or
L II l.