Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-05-13
Hon. JOHN E. HOUSE on THE UTAH DUES
TON.

We have recently received and
read the speech of the Hon. John
f. House, in the Utah contested
election case of Cannon VS.. Camp
bell, delivered in the House of Rep
resentatives April Is, 1882. To
those who were surprised-if there
were any-at his vote on this case
ana the anti-pOlygamy bill, we
would recommend a careful perusal
of this mastery effort, and would
be glad to publish it in full, to that
end, if we had the space. Col.
House voted against the unseating
of Cannon and the anti-polygamy
bill, and in his speech gives able
and sufficient reasons for doing so.
The fact that he took stand on the
unpopular side of this question and
stood up so boldly in the defense of
the organic law and constitution of
the land in the face of an unreasOn-
ing passion and prejudice, stamps
MN as a conscientious and honest
Statosman-a man who has the
courage of his own convictions and
the manlineos to stand up and ably
defend the correct and fundamen-
tai principles of our government.
His speech was not a defense of the
''perniciousd doctrines of polygamy,"
but a brave, steadfast and conscien-
tiOuS defense of the constitution
which is now SO Tuthlessly Overrid-
den by the Republican majority i'm
Congress. In the course of his
speech, which was listened to with
marked attention by the House and
greeted with frequent and loud APP
plause, he said:
"YOu cannot legislate mems re-
ligiOn or opinions out of them. Acts
of injustice and persecution will
cause them to adhere more stub
bOrnly to their faith. In my Opin-
ion it will succumb to the logic of
events and the farce of adverse pub
lie opinion. Anxious as | am to
see the cancerous spot of polygamy
eradicated from the body polite i
felt constrained to vote against the
bill passed at the present session. /
did not believe that the bill would
have the effect to destroy pOlygamy
i'm Utah, and it contained provisions
which / could not endorse. In
some of its fertures it is more wor-
thy of the barbarOus and prOscript-
i've spirit which marked the legis-
latiOn of three or four centuries ago
than of the enlightened judgment
and liberation of the present in the
land of written constitutions and
human rights. If it is determined,
regardless of all considerations
arising from obedience TO law, re-
Spect for constitutions and human
rights, TO crush out pOlygamy, let
the army be sent to Utah, and the
mailed hand of military power eX-
terminate il. But let us not pre-
tend to give the Mormon the right
of trial by jury, and then pack the
jury on him to insure his cOnVic-
ton.
The Constitution gives to every
man, whether he lives in Utah or
-llNoaA IAoNNNos W hCNhGA hS 10 a
Mormon or Methodist, the right
toa speedy trial by an impartial jury.
Now, when it provided, as it virtu-
ally is the bill passed at this session,
that none but anti-MOrmOns shall
compose the jury for the trial of
Mormon for the crime of pOlygamY
the accused has not the benefit of
an impartial jury to try him. But
it is said if you allow MOrmOns to
sit on Il jury you can never convict
one of pOlygamy. That may be
true. But does it follow that it is
therefore legitimate to substitute
the packed jury of eXpediency for
the impartial jury of the Constitu-
ton. The provisions of the law in
question strikes the deadliest blow
at the purity and impartiality Of
jury trial to be found anywhere in
the legislative history of this cOun-
try except in the reconstruction pol
ley adopted towards the South after
the late civil war, and that policy
was admitted by its ablest advocates
TO be outside the Constitution.