The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-04-27
DANGEROUS GROUND
Mr.. Chapman, of Michigan, ON
Free Laws For Free Men.
HE HITS SOME TELLING BLOWS
II Know Gentlemen Whose Virtue Consists
Solely in CoIdemning Polygamyr-The
Woods Full of Them.


free constitution, delivered April 2, 1890,
on the bill to admit Idaho.
MIR Speaker: 1 agree entirely with the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Smith) that
it would have been better if all four of the
territories mentioned by him had been put
into one bill and submitted to our consider
| alton. can see no reason-I never have.
| since l have been in Congress, seen any
reason-why either New Mexico or Arizona
should not be admitted to the sisterhood of
| states. AS compared with the territory of
Wyoming and with the territory of Idaho,
they have all the elements which entitle
them to admission. If there is any obiec-
to New Mexico, it is an objection which
applies to it in common, as it would seem.
with the territory of Idaho.
What has been urged against New Mex
leo is the character of her population. If
the extraordinary provision concerning
suffrage in the sixth article of the constitu-
ton now before us is justified by the facts,
it shows that there is an improper popula-
ton in Idaho-a population in numbers so
great as to be menace to the prosperity
OF the state-a population which, upon the
hypothesis of this clause in the constitu-
ton, is hostile to our institutions and unfit
to take part in the government This is
the argument which has been urged against
New Mexico. 1t is the only argument
which l have ever heard against it, and it
now stands, if | am correctly informed, as
barrier against bill being reported to
the House for the admission of that terri
tory.
But, sir, would not upon any political
ground oppose the admission of any terri
tory into the Union. My political brethren
will bear me witness that in the last Con-
gress | was an advocate for the admission
OF all the territories, and that in our party
councils l asserted, what 1 now repeat,
that it is impossible to exact any pledge of
party fealty from a state prior to its ad-
mission-not only impossible, but wrong
and unpatriotic in every way in which you
can view it. l believe that it is best
best for the country-to get rid of these
territorial governments, and it is infinitely
best for the people of territory them
selves to enjoy the rights and privileges of
statehood
Yet while l feel in this way 1 cannot for
get that the Constitution of the United
States imposes upon US the duty of guaran-
teelng republican form of government to
the states which constitute the members of
the Union. "What is a republican form of
government" would open wide range of
discussion. There are republics and there
are republics-republics which in our view
utterly fall short of the true definition of
commonwealth of that nature. And our
own republic, even in the estimation of
many of the best thinkers, does not con
tain that popular freedom which consti-
tutes the ideal of truly democratic state
But think l may say safely that no gov
eminent is republican in form which makes
oppressive distinctions between the citizens
of state. A government which in it's pol
icy, in its constitution and laws, distin-
cuisines oppressively against one class of
citizens and in favor of Another falls far
short of the model which we set before us
as the true one of republican institutions.
This Is especially true of distinctions
which impair IN any way a proper enjoy
ment of the elective franchise. That fran
chise is the very breath of REPUBLICAN insti-
buttons. Manhood suffrage is the very BODY
of liberty.
The American people have adopted this
as faith, and though no where expressed
in so many words in any of our constitu-
tions, | think | am fully justified in saving
that it may be considered as sort of nat
ural right, because it is the only method
which the world has yet discovered by
which full and perfect liberty may be
maintained for the people.
The report of the majority on this bill
seems to treat manhood suffrage as mere
political right. 1t undoubtedly is such
right; but it bears the same relation to
freedom as the right to pray and to preach
bears to the full exercise of the religion in
which we believe. And just so far as men
are Justly debarred from exercising it, lust
so far are they debarred from a full enioy-
ment of self-government
admit Mr. Speaker, that there ought to
be disabilities to vote 1t is not wise to
permit everyone to exercise this great
right. l know of no state in the Union. I
can conceive of no civilized state, which
would allow every one to exercise it. II
certainly have no particular objection to
the dlsqualifications prescribed in section 3
OF article of this constitution proposed for
the state of Idaho Almost all the states
IN the Union have disabilities of this kind
but in almost every one of them they are
clearly defined, and not only are they
clearly defined, but the method of ascer-
tanning them and of applying them as
barrier to the exercise of the elective fran
chise is explicitly set forth
rms constitution prescribes two classes
OF disabilities; and in my Judgment it pre-
scribes two different ways of ascertaining
whether citizen is subject to them First.
there are those disabilities which arise
from conviction in a court of Justice: and
the ascertainment of such disability is,
by the very nature of the language, re-
ferred to the action of court, making it
dependent upon the prior action of Judi
cial tribunal, as in the case of persons
under guardianship and persons convicted
of certain offenses.
AS to the second class, no method of as
pertaining is prescribed co nomine, but the
matter is plainly left to the discretion of
the legislature and the election officers.
This class embraces idiots insane nareono
persons in prison, every person who is