Show 1 li ippol le ing examination cf of addressed icer id I 1 in i vaa ly by i ki i my mv ii i fexas tj ta a distinguished offit ithe tha ait 1 in washington was ton and which ebli p hed in in a late number of the na A a nr rollina 1 IN UTAH ty t tha it common 16 yat baw M as thus far prevailed 14 jio to W in construing the conati ivi iti or 0 in ular words among a r v of fl t r V tion that even the abona aboni adoni 0 of 11 a in i a territory TErn tory is is 1 li I 11 I 1 at fieda fied und if i ap P rights ct a buat bat ve reimt to be b rea clied bcd by any i of the ip tP x reial recal government Governia ent i bro ight irth however lio vever in utah by 71 tal ali lind kind of provincial I 1 11 an ader the immunity i i ot of aday 6 day invest it warn us ua t P ta etli or kotae site safe principle 1 I 1 at aa sea in the territories may b i elking ground for univay tak ba Z r ence tew new and beAuS and constitutional b rsm effect among a people s a 2 t oil our of aught that may compro comero locy loc lf flon yet there here is la uch such 3 ci i lit net cef 5 et mentioned sofa so far r as 9 w in this tin botio clion isaich I 1 id drood ground for oui oil dirrie r r ap i p in ill the most morbid ow w ag i ft fe rg irs of federal intervention is w ditl it a new PW application of an old i B lit ht be called the cognion law of of tie the t there are many legal i I 1 points of I 1 law IV I 1 ili eh are common to states stales ard haie I 1 ave bren been since there exe A antl nl i lich bich are applicable to all lo 10 ud c being alia common law Ba bacri tri at t I 1 necess anly be the liw ur of wr r i i stale aate caino 0 a ajol be legalized lt i owed bylaw by law or inherent herent ir right abr th sta a cannot be restrained in ahe ic i v t ich are their joint ar possession pos i of f 0 0 v includes not political rights i to state Sovereign tie 1 tt T P imi p to them thi m all nor other things e ica aca y gnap but the points it law aw nd social ri nghi alit on 01 bibich v inch tile the r lit ank almons motis suit every region vt M tio plo has alwa alis ays s been vaguely felt uli I if f and to soma gome client aid at 1 practical though hough not in a it lens ease I 1 am no lawyer w ali uie the I 1 wory history of 0 precedents precedent 1 dolak w i drw atha that it hig more thano difed partially or indirectly recognized ay A q n nt 1 al 11 but t one P ln in a limited way it y heat tribunal in in an important i i 11 t 1 L he al A adred 1 scott tile the 10 0 oil 1 0 therein herein iii A was ivas made were that the e ight ot or r property involved S but cyb rad by y the ge conati 1 thit th it 11 lt it WS founded adud tally alad lb on what was commo m n law w of the states c adf ati lel had only been locally re id to so me of the states tates and C ws tt touton in the territories abe fed uton I 1 co 1 I calv ay inertly reco nisei what had aa sta kliSh ul abid dd had I 1 abee it been bilert on the subject I 1 tellene the liht ri h at hae ha e sustained anjel cdx by the the same sam court ast as vo preexistent pre re existent i C t to the const j tit autio i arid not repealed ly by it that coi court rt I 1 opine recognized c I 1 1 nihed but a single point in in a principle of I 1 national n a liw law which has never yet et come broadly before it for it if tins this common cominio i law oje of vie the states is valid alid in a territory a as 3 to i a right of pro property erty it must be valid as to rules I 1 of rth right t which aich concern concerti the general welfare e 0 as deeply and the people more mor unil ersa ily and aa it a right of property becomes b valid in a i territory because it 0 onca nee existed in all the states ard and still does in a portion lorl zon more surely otilit ought any social ri it or r moral restriction to become valid alid in te th territories leTri torie when it alway has without in or exception e misted existed in in all states polygamy is a crime by the of 11 the states and ever laa been I rna ma rich or hoori rit earnest canies whim him fro any te td the rial attil alven but every man mall poor gocr or rich car rie with with him a richt io to one wife po gamy as a monopoly of odthe the rich w impair arid and every ei ery v oman so go m cir car ries with her a to that social and an 1 freedom ali which polygamy y y I 1 igl knobil lestroy C conse 1 amy can be in the codamon domain re to the common law laly of the states it if a federal edral court cort could rot 1 tt I berei welon aon till thia deduction punish it as a crimp crime it coald I 1 believe on 01 this alone pronounce op conra M ill illegality e ard release those who oppressed are or restrained by it arid and anat to extent abe he difficult matter of poly gairy is reached by law already J bilat is by the constitution af pf eftie the union or tha ill a universal uri versal law of the batini biati on unlawful u III in its common rimon co domain ue lie cor como government of the union has a right top ewt from the tw its states because no such powe express or implied were granted to it but when once that hat common law 13 recognized congress has the he same right ngit aid duty 0 to o carry it out in the tex rit iones NN hiah it has to provide them r vilh ill executive and judicial cert with garrisons and oil of 0 f order and bacety it has haa in in a late instance alance iii acted aced on this thia principle pin ciple for though it was not no named the action could coul id be based on roSli act ins ing m else why I 1 did d d congress con resa forbid tho the territory of kansas to Jemi legislate slate on the tha subject 0 of slaver r lavery 0 it pre aimed as the supreme court afterwards decided that th old common commo law of the sates on that subject already existed there and was paramount to any law kansas could make it could ahe the same saine propriety p oane forbid utah to modify any other i i institution over I 1 hi aih ii the tha tame lane 1 ammon law is paramount S enty e as samy safely be restrained troa from I 1 aay as from froia abolition in Q ti e 1 r T ea their lack of basis 13 I 1 ide 1 and yet et tie 10 stricter constructionists who live hie in 11 lead eal of 0 f imaginary us pation hive i buted th tha a right of a polya polygamist mist to that of a ave older holder A federal 1 statute to prohibit polygamy poly would rot r loag be wan tins were the pi gomy ople convinced that one could be b pa paired ased impairing impat ring g the guard guaras the safety of local institutions sian tears fears might well be if in such enactment C 0 press were go verried merely by its ov oil n wal iut liow how could the danger dati er arise from rom a law of the union itrich ich gaea tadej the unanimity urani mity of state law as aa its ita guide or lov how could any state be a grieved by a national law to punish beyond that states jurisdiction ishac she herself vi 1 I pui punish aih is within ita it robbery within each cah state 11 P punished byl b laas robbery Fob bery on I 1 the he ocean i fl punished by a a aw nv of the alie and no state is injured t n by it A law from the same source 0 o punish polygamy in in the common domain do nain of 01 athe the states could coul id j involve no more dinner dang er of oe usurpation than does the law to punish piracy on the common highway of nations no noi could such a law involve a y more peril if directed 1 I against other any practice which the states sates repudiate in common I 1 to do not cite the c cases of p piracy iracy and poleg polygamy tiny as aa identical hroch throughout tile tha ore one bein v against the ile CORI common mon law of rations nations slid ind the other oilier against the common law of tho the states but they are perfectly analogous r so far as concerns the safety of allovio al allowing lovin g the general government to punish an caime a commit committed led out the state ct I 1 which bi on all of them would punish within their respect respective ve bounds the most that 3 sove rei sovereignty arity can claim is 13 the right to all lo 10 local cal legislation riot not incompatible incon with the constitution and laws lawa of the united states and the common law of the states as 49 here h ere defined is is I 1 assert as aa klucha much a part of the constitution of the land as is 13 any other principle too na nationally inherent to need Parchment pa for its s basis b such isis a principle nay may long remain latent as if tins its has done till events call it into action n I 1 for or half a century after the tha written constitution covered Is without quenching it it was ivas rot pot eien NIlen it became a the theme tw for agi an y 0 e hearing bearing of it was perceive ana it as io g before even that ism ai a i ju 11 tad A 1 tit it I 1 it but I 1 am bonvin ced ed that oil id es ie approaching time of f iti re r I 1 fo in its broad broa I 1 appl ap icat on IOB e s ri 11 e ring pt it indich the written ons I 1 n con confirms W wa n rally arst v jt acot to b bs a a aar indich it loea 0 e 3 n not 1 repeal peal v vill ill 1 bollay I I 1 e cal of vanta erit t V the tag rights h t ag 0 a i JH y t dentious rent envious ious abc abuse be la have be been efte ri in 0 im ata I 1 ken grounds oi of liberty kb arty c age jance but etli haiat liberty aluc idt tit carries with inn hini irom a stat batata t A does not alow him to sai y the law all the t slates ate ais p k e he canor not go front from his Q ov na state wil adoll poly ramy a is pa r C ligion ho cannot ca u ot d dj it on gau gong oil emair neither can M i a foreia i a bring ivita him 1 im a i greater licen e a seday a native eldith r aay te atory ve ise li it ive ise ac i irod I 1 b alf alth it any old lucal local rights rii iti me i tile nion mon law ot ot tile scabs be any such be lai lar lawfully fily fully guaranteed guarantied guaran tied 1 specially in in any acquisition inte inie come aay thing ahli g nore more tun than a il 6 ib poly amy though th i gh not 0 0 is as mia within the edt grOf ot ct car every state is as and abt h he ne is lit as r repugnant 1 a 1 L t ti r reli e 1 its a the othel 17 el we e e may a at I 1 sot gom ile i re a terr tory on the pa ian to the emigre enig 0 dij bority hindmo and 4 theo aln of sani ay a more verie v one abib filth chwi jor J bull the t lie litter latter can sue act p 1 ose rd he former may a as 11 iad ie C jilt n burn I 1 ing 0 of f the and the car t of m all tees the score yet ir it tecc aki P on w 0 bi tile states against cridge is ii ta be fore 3 hitter sovereignty as murder will wil 1 enjoy the 8 i aa priestly brothels bro 1 els T 1 4 it may be argued ar gued thit t hi I 1 e bension of a prohibitory law laic over V the e territories would eventually pro prove e since the it aims a at t though for the t e line ime being repressed could revive ili the sir sa c e region deion uder aider a state Cons titi tion in ili reply I 1 1 would 1 say gay let early prevention ob obviate v tate the need of a remedy vi Is ilich later could not reach the disease kletthe let the edily eaily plan tint or of holdso holc csoma so ma law root out th the gerni germ ef cf i corruption 5 or if such preventative fail let cosover no over canty ci lity 1 ie e allowed to germinate along with lu suan c ll 11 pestilent growth among the w wherewith a e the ideas of the day hive invested a lutter sovereign e 1 is one chith IN hiell may bo called the right of intrusion Be caise by the constitution new states may be b admitted by the cong confess ress with wilh a republican form forin OJE of gets governa arnn ent on trie coi st ruction that earry c r pretender pr tender of a state slate must be admitted il J is choit any obber elp ele dept of fit i it t presents pre that hit empty amp forn form which even a hayden kublic of oe when a 1 dep raveLi aal and lawless frontier fron tir ra province 0 ay ince chois hose bove severe re agn n nob mob counts but hair 1 the constitutional basis for one I 1 1 depre senta haa force pr per to be admitted as a state because became it preset is i a certain atch delit form forma ahr ill work perhaps of oiny oily parch one faction of its rabble alien the zi tinly strict con a strains at a pat gnat and swallows a allows a carne came but this right oe OL intrusion Is is an absurdity wh nh nece allies of out our groath groi ill 1 I ahe he right to to admit implies the light alto nl to I 1 eject arid and the admitting pow po er must bethe be I 1 the judge of fi in in all re Ui sites a s save 2 ve tile I 1 two 0 i that hat are rained named there must maist be a republican torn form of government and no drenching trenching tren ching on tion of other states the nicking hjul of these W two 0 does docs not bar the ran of docto as to others I 1 v inch experience nay may chow tobe eign bial nor inake the pick of choite on only objections to be considered rah framers or of Y the constitution had not no eye to manifest destiny when t they pr deuced their lew meagre provisions relative to territories Terri and n new states yet this thia maunc va unc i being adapt ab blo I 1 e to a wide avide range raap of conditions cond itic ng waa ilas doubtless better suited to a future whose wants nants they could not foresee han an annj specific rules they coull could then have hae fremed fram I 1 it our domain continues cinti can unnes to widen aviden as I 1 did during the first half 0 of this wo ive mus must ter ere elong long have will ave to bide a longer pupilage ilag e arid and a more thorough hobough hoi ough renovation ot population i than any lave yet done before they can pre pres sime nine to claim admission to the family or of states and vo ive will probably hive llave others will never ever become eligible tor for that I 1 adoption dop ti on I 1 jhc baht t sei ire carries with it he right ri ht to govern go vern a nd the consequent of if altti adapting dg the territorial Terri tonaI 0 the fie capacity or of the governed arid and ot of con annin inong it aa long as a CI circumstances e ces re require juire hough the term be b endless the inherent right right ofte of the h e people to local self 11 3 ui j a r I 1 subordinate to t the inherent right rig h t of cf the de jenral government Covern ment to rule rile 01 er ahat or acquires for cor the states State 1 whose common interest it must guard ard either cje thomp can cedato to the other according to th ability ce cc the I 1 inhabitants to 0 make arid execute their 0 own n laws lav s our constitution e does loes not recognize in in all races the he inherent hrent in right of self government goi nor doey doe re so it in any so long lot as th the inherent capacity caa cit tor for it is lost A fra fragment g of population in thit that capacity fara city ia n i or extinct 13 not cf the aco ju 10 in the tha constitutional sei sense e of the inc word r d no 0 one would bulj claim that rank or quality now tir for a e tribe or a penal col colony lany nor will it a few fei i eam ars hence be claimed for any pop inch approaches the condition ol of eolar should vie ise then hereafter provinces in a permanent permin ent and deserved deger ved state ot PT flage they would mould have little grounds for complaint di at d ive e as little for apprehension so 80 long lon is as state st ite law continues anaid in ili all al essco lial rules riles of right ard and iiron vron gand and extends those wh oleo rules over the iha common dougain d annn it 1 11 i thit una nil nty ot of hiate law in all that con cerns cerna tile social fabric I 1 aich hi h more than fedrial C mikes us one people and it ceases na n comp compact ct c can preserve the bonti bon I 1 oi of union T USSA Aro xio TEXAS JUNE aj 21 1853 1833 about weeks ahr after I 1 hid in late article under the a above ove t tid that bat my ar argument gumer halt een n a asti uty LILY in botu both argoma 11 tor nt as thy h ned tiva I 1 pra lei of la r f i ince tir the fr t 14 r altesa lay though UK the 6 it arence tu 1 I tta ilous it mi misfit n be so 0 to a 1 41 i v i P dixy 0 a I 1 and hence a |