Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-02-09

should report 10 Congress- That II not
an argument In favor Of what the senn
tor suggests. for subsequent to that
time. by several statutes. they extended
the Constitution into the new Terri
tories.
MIR. Rawllns-well, I shall submit the
| language itself for It's own interpreta-
tion. / do not think II can be made
clearer by anything that either the
senator or I can say about IL.
Mr.. President. next refer to the case
| Of Murphy vs. Ramsey an II. &. Re-
ports. pngc 30. Justice Matthews. In
delivering the opinion OF the court in
that case, said;
The personal and civil rights Of the
inhabitants Of the Territories are Sc
cured "a them MS 10 other citizens, by
the principles Of constitutional liberty
which restrain all the agencies OF gov
eminent, state and National. Their
political rights are franchises which
they hold rs privileges Ia the legislative
discretion OF the Congress of the United
States.
II Is true that the Constitution does
not lmpart political privileges, the
frnnchlse of voting, or holding Office to
the Inhabitants ~ Territory, not be-
cause Il is not applicable to the Terri
tory. but because that instrument does
not impart such rights anywhere. either
In n State or In Territory. MS held by
the Supreme Court Of the United States
N the case OF Minor W. Happersctt, u
Wallace.
Mr.. President. ex paric Nielsen usi
L. 50 " an Interesting chrv. Nielsen
sought relief by the writ OF habcas cor.
pus from second trial and punishment
for tho same offcnsc,of which he hal
been previously convicted. Mr. Justice
bradley delivered the opinion OF the
court. ] desire a. call attention tu the
fact that this opinion was delivered by
At. Justice bradley, because some som
atprs have asserted that that distln.
fuishcd judge In another ease made an
intination that the Constitution was
not IN force IN or applicable TO Terri
tory. This distinguished Judge IN this
case used this language. page 1873.
In the present care the ground for
the habcaH corpus was not the invalid
ny OF nn act OF Congress- under which
the defendant was Indicted. but n sec.
1nd prosecution ana trial of the same
"ncnsc contrary Ia an express provision
~ the Constitution. In other words.
the constitutional immunity Of the de.
icn1ant was violated BY the second
trial and Judgment
a similar case IL that Of ex parte
Snow. reported In 100 u. T.. ga, In which
lice Iilaich,orI vi" u'"''''' ny H''' JUS
In me CO. -, ,h.. ..N,,.,,,.,,,, Gu.
Va United s,a,s. mae 4. IA , ,,u.,
Hrndloy, In delivering the opinion OF the
court. HayH.
Doubtless Congress In ieginlnting for
the Territories would be- subject 10
those fundamental limitations In favor
OF personal rights which are found In
the Constitution and amendments. etc.
In caiian VI Wilson ug5 4. r.. slo).
which arose In the District OF Columbia.
n was held that the people Of tho his.
irict can not be deprived OF any OF IN.
constitutional guarantees OF life. liberty
ana property.
az. 49,,
s., a.. e. -.
''' wv S"p''We '"urt-
that the people Of this District have In
that regard less rights than those ne.
corded to the peopio OF The T.rritorlc,
OF the United states.
o., .,
~ Ain.ticnn Publishing Company W
y Anet ,ius " ~ ttsl " was held that
IN we Tcrfitoty OF Wan parties 20 a
eu, Nv common law WHERE the value In
controversy shall cxcecd $50 cnn not be
IN 1si'el ine tisht OF unanimous vcr-
ulrt nI lWclN. men under the seventh
o. the Constitution.
IN sriinENlllc " Thomas ,is5 u. T..
,vI' mter decision than the above.
anl Involving the same question, IN
when " was elaborately contcndcd by
counsel that the provisions OF the Con-
situtlun were not applicable 10 the Ter
iltofler' chief Justice FULLER In deliver
ink me opinion oi the court uses this
lahEunHc. 10 which ] invite the nttcn.
'l"h OF SENATOR'S
In the opinion tho seventh nu.n,.
ment secured ,,nanimi,v ia ar,i,,,.
verdict Az an essentlai f.at,ir, az n a,,ai
by Jury In common.iaw cases. ana he
act OF Congress could not impart The
power 10 change the constitutional rule. |
and could not be construed US attempts |
ing 10 do 10.
Mr.. Prcsldent. n the cons,,,n,,o, M,
~ III. 70 lsfti,'ty defends upon
No., ~. ,i,',,i,,, ~" A., pns.ra " mas
lana" ,np, ~ " h ~ ,.su,uunh. put |
g,css i,ssi, ,,, ~ w. .St ~ toh-
~ ,sai} y" .hAnse' |
mem. co,,r, ,s,.r.ta,., nlu WV su.
.asss a, hish ~ W wv NUMEROUS
re-, ,r,,.,,, ny p,'slv,uN,, prvh before
A. H., ,'',',' ~, hei' ue.lhirl'
gr,.sa ca, ,,,' i,,,,,,,, ,,',,,, unnt toh-
81 ,vhich ~, n",e,,,'. w. any
~ n ,rs,si,or, ", ,h' ~, ~, lhnapltHntA
,n,r~ as nrnyi,,oH W., ,'sn. ., u!n ny
In Thn,npsan ~. ~. a,a, .uoon'
40 u. n ia, The auesiio,, ~. " ,tan
snrhid,im,, pr on ~ hn constitution
aitainder or OK post faoio law the right
OF tfinl by jury % twelve men 10 which
the defendant was entitled In the Terri.
,ory oi utaii AZ the tine when the Of