OCR Text |
Show TERRITORIAL O0VEHMENTS. Wo aro forced to recur ayain to tho subject of territorial government by un article in tho Tribune of Saturday, which ia in reply to a sentence in the Ikrai.d editorial of Friday. We should he very glad to discuss this question ou ita merits, aa wo know of no other people wlio are a much interested in-terested in iU settlement upon a just republican basis aa those of Utah; hut it U beneath the dignity of fair argument to resort, in tho consideration considera-tion of so grave a question, to tho tricks and subterfuges which distinguish distin-guish a political campaign, or to appeal ap-peal to personal or local prejudices. Wo wish to Ascertain whether under our constitutional Bystem there is a proscribed and limited form of territorial ter-ritorial govermcnt, by which both congress and the people of the territories ter-ritories are bound. Wo wish to learn the ultimate objccU of bucIi form of government, and the powers aud rights respectively of congress and the people of said territories. We demonstrated, we think, in last Thursday's Herald, that according w ji mo lnimers 01 tne federal constitution, they never contemplated con-templated tho erection of colonial governments or satrapies in any ter-rities ter-rities under their control; but that the territorial governments as established by them, wero simply a temporary devico to enable the settlers upon the uational domain to place themselves under the protection and control of the parent government until they at-' tained sufficient numbers to authorize author-ize them to form a local government, preliminary to the establishiment of a state government and admission into tho union at a certain specified stage. When any territory shall have 60,000 frco inhabitants therein, such state shall be admitted into the union with authority to form a permanent constitution con-stitution and stato government, etc. One of the clauses of tho ordinance of 17t7 specifies that its adoption, among othor things, is for the admission admis-sion of these territories, "to share in tho federal councils, on an equal footing with the original states, at as, early periods as may bo consistent with the general interest." Thero cau bo no doubt, therefore, that ter-' ritorial governments as such, were considered by the fathers ot tho government, gov-ernment, as merely temporary ei-ped ei-ped i meuts, preparatory to their ad m is sion into the union as states. In fact, the genius of our federal system is inconsistent with any other theory. We said that if Major Hempstead's definition of the power of congress over tho territories was correct, thero could be no limit to ita exercise, and the Tribune refers to tho constitutional constitution-al restrictions in regard to legislation interfering with religion and vested property rights, and aaks if congress has no limits of legislation in these matters in the District of Columbia, over which it has complete control by special constitutional provision. The Tribune is rather technical, and wanders from the question at issue. It might as well ak if congress has the power to order the execution of a citizen of Washington by act of congress. e have- not forgotten that "wo havo a written con stitution under which the power of tvngreos is very limited." This is the vory point wo are trying to b;in our ueihbor to but wi- arc uoa- discussing the question k tut-power of congress over terri-governments, terri-governments, not the power of tMi.gr vss over the District of Columbia, Colum-bia, where it has the exclusive legislative legis-lative p.'rog itlve, and can make and unmake at its pleasure. Tho Tribune is probably aware that there are some things which even the czar of Russia Rus-sia cu;:. -it do, iiis;"jt as he is. Our omMiMtioiial k;r;ns,aiiJ many of our rirs aro stiii sacrtdly preserved; but tiiiii- :s a Ecrijus question, whether, uu :.t i.ite administrations, the gov-ur.Miu gov-ur.Miu .ii li.ts iwt bot'u gradually run-nii run-nii imu nc .v u::d airaiig'j channels, itii'.i a-- i:iii:l; ioviri nut contempt: contem-pt: ii Ly the fundamental ;iw or wiliuu Hie range of early pi cedents. V n-nti-nd on general principles that tin re is no constitutional warrant I'ir M tj'ir Hrnip-ite.id's idea of the i!ipr.:in '.v..t of con-a-.-s over the . t-rritori.-s. W.: furihr-r assert that it ' camio1. bfc ' a '!. u principle ,,f c.,!..-r.:tn'..--.. I u.'-.prL-uuon, by slty l:ixr.y pr.-. ..u. i-A of the government, govern-ment, or by any acknowledge- constitutional con-stitutional cummenta tor, that congress can take away the rights granted to a territory Once organized, except through the excrewe of an arbitrary and illegal power. Tuat is, congress his no ri'jkl or irer to abolish the territorial leyitt-iture'ij L'tah, which is a right vested in and settled upon the people, by virtue of constitutional authority. Though no new state cau bo admitted ad-mitted to the union without the con-Hcnt con-Hcnt of congress, it id clear that the continued refusal , of tho national legislature to admit a nl-te that had the requisite population, under the usual constitutional restrictions, would bo an act of despotism entirely en-tirely foreign to our synteru of government. gov-ernment. The trouble has been in our recent practice that new states have been admitted to meet party exigencies, long before they had tho requisite population to elect a member mem-ber to congress. We wero not aware, as the Tribune asserts, that tho constitution con-stitution of the United States provide pro-vide that a territory shall bo admitted ad-mitted to the union as a stato when it shall have a population of a con gressional district, though a similar clause in tho ordinance of 1787 is regarded as almost equil to constitutional constitu-tional authority. We cannot follow tho Uribune iu its looso arguments in regard to "the rights of a theocracy," "the divine power of the priesthood," etc., etc. There is nut nine logical or tangible in such talk. That journal complains com-plains that "tho priesthood exercise the power of excluding from local olliees, and to a great extent from trade, all tho nou-Murmons of Utah." As to the o dices, tho majority of the peoplo here aro not more intolerant than the majority in other states aud territories. Neither of the political parties when in power allow their opponents op-ponents any share in tho emoluments or perquisites of tho covernment. Tho majority rule is an American principle, sanctioned by the earliest usages, and minority representation prevails only to a limited extent in one or two states. The Herald would advocate its adoption in Utah to-morrow, were tho question really before the peoplo, although satisfied that nothing but the actual power to override the majority here and rule them according to the notions of the minority will ever satisfy a lew citizens, citi-zens, who claim superiority ot sentiment senti-ment and ideas which entitles them to supremacy over the majority. We do not think the Tribune will ever bo gratified in this demand. We are ready to insist that equal and exact justiie shall bo done to every class of citizens under our local laws and governments, gov-ernments, but we know of only one tribunal through which the authority and wishes of the American people can be legally declared. That is the able to appeal with the force of numbers num-bers to that tribunal, it must carry its grievances to the courts organized to protect the rights of all classes under un-der the laws. |