The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-09
THE DEBATE.
Continuation of the Cannon
Campbell Contest, in the
House.
BeItzhOOver's Argument.
COntin,led from Sundag.

1
laid down. will it be just for this the
highest legislative tribunal Of this great
| Christian republic to admit to Its mem
bership one WkO openly and unblush-
ingly charges God with inspiring and re-
vealiRR and commanding to be preached
and taught among men doctrine not
only of filth and lust. but of hostility to
our government and defiance to OH laws;
doctrine which profaneS and dehles the
| pure and holy law which binds the fam
lilies and forms thereby the great fouods-
| ton Of social virtue on which free ma
ton must rest; a doctrine which insults
the sacred titles of mother and wife, and
sister and daughieri doctrine which ig-
nores the mighty progress OF mankind
and deies the civilization and literature
and philosophy which Christianity has
brought to light among men.
WHAT QUALIFICATIONS MUST DELE
GATES NAVE.
But notwithstanding that polygamy is
an institution Of ths character we have
stated. and that Mr.. Cannon is It's repre-
sentative. il is contended that under the
! Constitution and law we have no right TO
refuse him a seat as delegate from Utah.
This leads us to inquire into the powers of
Congress over the territories, aud how
far his House las the right to prescribe
qualifications for the admission of dele
gates therefrom.
The only portion of the Constitution
of the United States which refers to the
territories is article ", section 8, clause
2, which provides:
Tie Congress shall have power TO dis
pese of snd make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging TO the United
States.
This clause of the fundamental lew
has received tho: most learned and elab-
crate consideration by the Supreme
Court, in Scott Us. Sanford, (l9 Howard
393, &c. wherein, after going fully into
the whole history of the territories
from the time of the first cession to the
government, it is held that this clause
Applies only to territory within the
chartered limits OF some one Of the states
when they were colonies of Great Brit
ain, and which was surrendered by the
British government to the old confedera-
ton of the states in the treaty Of peace.
It does not apply to territory acquired by
the present federal government by treaty
OF conquest from foreign nation.
To all other territory it ia held that the
|
be extended by Congress. except in so
far as Congress may enact the provisions
Of the Constitution into part Of the Or
eanic law of such territory. This has
been done in regard to Utah: FIRST, by
the act Of Congress which organized that
territory, and which provides that "the
Constitution and laws of the United
States are hereby extended over and de-
clared to be in force in said Territory Of
Utah, so far as the same or any provision
thereof may be spplicable;" and second,
BIZ the Revised Statutes, section 1891,
which provides, in somewhat different
language, but Of the same purport, that
"the Constitution and laws Of the
United States which are not locally 10
applicable shall" etc.
The Constitution and sill the laws Of
the United States are, therefore, part Of
the statute law of the territory OF Utah,
go far as they aye applicable loyalty TO
that territory.
Now, what was the design of the franz
ers OF the Constitution in reference to the
territory which they provided for in the
clause which We have quoted above? The
history Of the subject clearly shows that
they intended to commit the unorganized
territories wholly to the discretion and
unlimited power Of Congress. This is so
decided by the courts in all the cases in
which the subject is considered, this was
SO held in Scott Us. SANFORD, (SNprG)
and Judge Nelson, in Bonner as. Porter,
9 Howard, 295, says:
They are not organized under the
Constitution nor subject to its complex
distribution of the powers of government
or the organic law, but are The creatures
exclusively of the legislative depart ment,
and subject to its supervision and con-
troll"
1t is held by Judge Story that:
The power of Congress over the pub
lie territories is clearly exclusive and
universal, and their legislation is subject
to no control. but Is absolute and unllm-
tied, unless so far IS il is affected by stip-
ulatioGs in the cessions, or by the ordin-
ance of 1877, under which any part Of it
has been settled. (Story, Constitution,
section 1928; Rowle, Constitution, psge
2S7; l Kent's Commentaries, page
24S)."
The Supreme Court of the United
States, in q very recent case, says:
"The power is subject 10 no limita-
tons. (Gibson Us. Ch3uteau, Is Wall,
9g."
See also Stacey vs Abbott 4 Am.
Law, T. r. S4.) where it is held By the
supreme court of one Of the territories,
that they "are not organized under the
| Constitution; they are exclusively the
creatures Of Congress"
But there is something more shown by
the history of the clause in the Constitu-
ton in reference to territories and by the
decisions of the courts thereon. It is
clear from both these that it was never
intended that the status Of the territories
should in any respect approach so near
the character and position Of sovereign
states as to require that whatever agents
these territories might be entitled 10 on
the floor of Congress, should have thu
status and qualifications Of members Of
Congress. The territories, in the minds
of the trainers of the Constitution, had
none of the rights and attributes of the
states.
| From the commencement of the revo--
| 1t;ona-x, mo, eariOua dif1oultiaa existed