Arizona silver belt., 1885-10-03

press an@ slusltlVb tSftliSs WenleG 70 Ltle general governmeRt; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care
 Thus tho rights of property arc united with the fights Of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall De de. priVed oflife, liberty or property with out due process of law
 And m act of Congress which de- prlyes q citizen of the United States of hls liberty CT property, merely be- cause he came himself or brought his property into particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no oilense against the laws, could hardlybe dignified with the name of due process of law
 So, too, it will hardly be eontended that Congress could by law quarter soldier in house in q territory wlth- out the consent Of tho owner, in time of peace; nor in time of war, putin manner prescribed hy law. Norcould they by law forfeit the property of a citizen in a territory who was cen- yioted of treason, for longer period than tho life of the person convicted: nor take private property for public use without a just compensation.
 The powers of person and property ofwhich We speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them, And this prohibit ton is not confined to the states, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of 1t remain ing under territorial government, as well as that covered by state.
 It is a total absence of power every where within the dominion of the United States, and places tho citizens of a territory, 50 far as these rights are concerned on the same footing with citizens of the states, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the general government might attempt, under the plea ot im- piled or incidental powers
 And if Congress itself cannot do this; fit is beyond the powers con. ferred au the Federal Government, 1t will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize c territorial gov. ernment to exercise them.
 It could confer no power on any local government, established by its authority, to violate tue provisions of the constitution
 It must De remembered however that in none of tue eases clted above including tue case of Dred Scott vs. Sandfsra was it precisely in issue whether tho first eight amendments, to the Consultation or any Of them are binding upon tue Territorial Legisla, ture, nor does a most diligent exalnin. ation oi the U. $. Supreme Court Re- ports disclose decision upon the question.
 In the case of Dred Scott vs Sand ford the po,nt before the court was whether eertaln act of Congress was constitutional or unconstitutional. The opinion therefore, which l have quoted, expressed ln the case is more in the nature of dictum of the Judge, as far as this case IS concerned, than q b,ndlng authority upon this court. It has already been decided that the fifth amendment does not control the action of State Legislatures. Baron v. Meyer and city council of Baltimore, 7 Peters, 247.
 It is declared m tilis case laa cited that the people at the time of the pas sage of these amendments. dia not fear encroachments upon thtar liberty by the State governments, but did fear them from the Federal government If the laws in any state regulating tbe procedure in criminal cases were deemed unjust and oppressive, the dis conteuted State could easily change its laws but could not without co- operation with the great majority of the other states secure any change in Federal law
 Therefore 1t was held that il was not theintention ofthe peopie to have these amendments amply to the States, nor did ttey by 1t limit at all the power of the state governments. This decision has been repeatedly affirmed by tho Supreme Court of the Uuited States, until no principle IS more firmly and immovably imbedded in our jirispru- dcnce than it established.
 IL is quite possible that at tho time when these amendments were adopted, no crimes were thought of except crimes against tLe government of the United States, and crimes against the government of tho several states and that there is still field for judiciul construction in determining, whether this amendment applies to the proec. dure in punishing crimes committed against the territorial governments.
 IL $ possible that it was the inten- ton to provide by this amendment. that the procedure by information must necessarily De followed only in the case ofoHenses committed against tho United States, such oFenses as are published in tbe name oF tho United States, and not such as are punished in the nano Of state or territory.
 am not therefore 50 entirely satis-