The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-02-12

be enforced in the territories, to make
it conform to the constitution That
was the substance of their declaration
Mr.. TelleT-Yes, but it was to provide
that the governor of the territory, in
1 stead of reporting to the confederation
should reportto congress. That is not
an argument in favor OF what the SEN
ator suggests, for subsequent to that
time, by several statutes, they extended
the constitution into the new terrific
ries.
Mr.. Rawlins-Well, L shall submit the
language itself for it's own interpreted
ton. 1 do not think it can be made
clearer by anything that either the sem
atOr or L can say about it,
Mr.. President, 1 next reGer to the casa
of Murphy VS.. Ramsey Ola u. S. re-
ports, page 44). 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 to them, as to other citizens, by
the principles of constitutional liberty
! which restrain all the agencies of gov
eminent, state and national Their po-
litical rights are franchises which they
hold as privileges in the legislative dis
cretion of the congress of the United
States
1t is true that the constitution does
net impart political privileges, the
franchise of voting, or holding office TO
the inhabitants of a territory. not be-
cause it is not applicable to the terri
| tory, but because that instrument does
not impart such rights anywhere, either
| IN a state or in a territory. as held by
the supreme court of the United States
in the case of Minor VS.. Happersatt. q
Wallace.
Mr.. President, Elk parte Nielsen OBJ
Z. So is an interesting case. Nielsen
! sought relief by the writ of habeas ccr-
pus from second trial and punishment
for the same offense of which he had
been previously convicted Mr.. Justice
Bradley delivered the opinion of the
court. I desire to call attention to the
fact that this opinion was delivered
by Mr.. Justice Bradley, because some
senators have asserted that that dis
| tinguished judge in another case made
an intimation that the constitution was
not in force in or applicable to a ter
rltory. This distinguished judge in
this case used this language, page 1S3:
In the present case the ground for
the habeaS corpus was not the invalid
ity of an act of congress under which
the defendant was indicted, but a sec
end prosecution and trial of the same
offense, contrary to an express provis-
lOiA VI liz COllSttbuI1Oli Ii ONAltA MOtNSs
the constitutional immunity of the de-
PENDANT was violated by the second
trial and Judgment
A similar case is that of eX parte
Snow, reported in 120 u. S., pa, in which
the opinion was delivered by Mr.. JUS
tice Blatchford.
In the case of the Mormon church VS.:
United States Q36 U. S., 44) Justice
Bradley, in delivering the opinion of the
court, says:
Doubtless congress, in legislating for
the territories, would be subject to
those fundamental limitations in favor
of personal rights which are found in
the constitution and amendments, etc"
In Callan VS.. Wilson Q27 U. S., 540),
which arose in the District of Columbia,
it was held that the people of the dis
triot cannot be deprived of any of the
constitutional guarantees of life, lib
erty and property.
I'VE cannot think" said the supreme
court, that the people of this district
have in that regard less rights than
those accorded to the people of the ter
ritories of the United States"
In American Publishing company VS.
Fisher G66 U. s.. 464) it was held that
in the territory of Utah parties to a
suit at common law. where the value
in controversy shall exceed $40, cannot
be denied the right of unanimous
verdict of twelve men under the seventh
amendment of the constitution.
In Springville VS.. Thomas Q66. L. S., /
70O. a later decision than the above,
and involving the same question, in
which it was deliberately contended by
counsel that the provisions Of the con-
stitution were not applicable to the |
territories, Chief Justice Fuller, in de |
liveTing the opinion of the court, uses
this language. to which 1 invite the at |
tention of senator's:
In our opinion the seventh amend |
ment secured unanimity in finding a /
verdict as an essential feature of a trial /
by jury in common law cases, and the |
act of congress could not impart the /
power to change the constitutional rule, !
and could not be construed as attempt |
ing TO do So"
MIR. President, if the constitution ap-
plicable to a territory depends upon the
legislative act of congress, it has not
the dignity of the constitution, but
stands upon the level of the act of |
congress Itself, and is subject to change,
or repeal, and the supreme
court, referring to the numerous cases
which had previously been before that
tribunal, expressly here declared. in the
very latest decision, that congress can
not impart validity to any act which
will deprive the inhabitants of ter
ritory of the right of trial by jury as
provided in the constitution.
In Thompson VS.. the state of Utah
(170 u. S., 346) the question was whether
under the provision of the constitution
congress to pass any bin
Of attainder or eX post facto law the
right of trial by jury OF twelve men
to which the defendant was entitled in
the territory of Utah at the time when
the offense charged was committed,
could be subsequently taken away by
an act authorizing his trial by jury
of only eight men. The su-
)reme court held not. Justice Harlan,
n delivering the opinion of the court,
says:
That the provisions of the constitu-
ion of the United States relating to
common law apply to the territories of
he United States Is no longer an. open
question"
Further the court says:
When Thompson's crime was COM
nitted Tin the territory it was his con-
;tituticnal right to demand that his
liberty should not be taken from him
Except by the joint action of the court
md the unanimous verdict of a jury
# twelve persons. To hold that a
fate could deprive him of his liberty by
he concurrent action of a court and ,,
ight jurors would recognize the power
# the state not only TO do what the
United States in respect of ThompSon's :
rhine could not at any time have done :
" legislation but to take from the ac-
used substantial right belonging to
lin when the offense was committed" :
There is a distinct and unequivocal !
declaration that congress could not at ,
ny time, take from one convicted of :
I