| Show i t letten LETTER R IV itis therefore proper proper to say that chiu afiz the cass case at bar is called the people berau verau brigham young its othey and real title titos is FE liebal FEDERAL AU versus THEOCRACY 1 I 1 opinion of ohi AGAPI Chi justice J X B 2 hoe ean f 1 1 the who territorial question aar jar editor dear zear mr sir in MY last lia ila timatea that I 1 I 1 would examine the territorial question owing to the peculiar position that we have occupied and do a till still occupy this is becoming a grave question for statesmen and political savanis savants sa the north western territory the florida florada purchase the acquisition of texas the conquest purchase and annexation of california and alaska and our extensive domain in the far northwest north west our pres present ent relations with mexico and other powers together with the the fast settling up of the country the great increase of population the vast influx of heterogeneous immigration composed of european mongolian and other races and the continuous addition of new now states and territories place us in a position different entirely from any other nation that ever existed possessing also a republican form of government and constitution which binds us to guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government and to protect them against invasion and domestic violence all of these render it very important that welock we look well to our political land marks and as a vast empire is with gigantic strides burg surg ing growing increasing spreading and emp expanding anding and as we are legislating on first principles and forming farming precedents for unborn millions that may tread in our footsteps it Is well for us to ponder well the path of our feet and be careful that we introduce no principles advocate no tem xem establish no precedent or antecedent that is unquestionable unequal une unjust or oppressive or that will tend to dissolution or decay and that we guard jealously and safely our political rights and immunities it has beon been the opinion of many 6 states tales men and la is a favorite dogma of monarch lets that democracy or Is only adap adapted for small communities in the first they are of course correct but in a republican representative govern government men t the statement is a fallacy it is further urged that peoples are not capable of self government I 1 might he here re ask who then are are kings emperors autocrats presidents judges and others more competent history does not so instruct us who are these magnates are they not people Is their intelligence more profound are their principles more correct their lives more virtuous their blood more pure than other peoples let history answer we vve are told however that eter nal nai vigilance is the price of liberty and as we possess the best beat constitution and th the a est government in the world let us pre pro erve it and transmit it intact pure aud u unadulterated to our children A territorial government is a very peculiar organization and although there are many good traits in it and few that are bad if not perverted yet it is so strange and anomalous as to appear like a fungus orex or ex cresence conour on our body politic and as it is monarchial and not republican in form it presents the anomalous position of monarchial rule in a republican government as his honor our chief justice has bal it an I 1 imp imperium cerium in imperial im perfo perio it is wit with b very great delicacy that I 1 would question the acts of our legislators and statesmen 1 I loos upon them as leading represents time men of the greatest nation on the earth yet withal they are but men and in the heat beat of debate under part parti izan zan influences influence with a strict and honest regard to their constitutional amenities and with the best beat and purest intentions policy political necessities conflicting interests and a desire to promote the public weal they sometimes make malco grave mistakes I 1 think that the organization of territories is one of these which 1 I now examine and will state that as there is no constitutional authority for such an organization it is simply an unauthorized jurisdiction for the constitution Is as binding upon congress as upon the people annd arid anything not authorized in that instrument is assumed ton Von congress gress has indeed the power to admit no new states into the union art IV sec bee ZA 3 band and to guar guarantee anteo antoo to such states a republican form of government but nowhere does it possess tin constitutional power to organize governments it possessor legislative power in and ard andover over thet the district of columbia and over the forts arsenals dock yards and magazines sec semi VIII and has power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the ter and other property of tho united states hut hut but not to legislate for tho inhabitants 0 territories who arb are not property no statesman in tho advocacy of the right of congress to organize terri to rial government would pida hide himself be hoj bol hina hind so flimsy sy and ana transparent a billar bulwark as the territorial property eirdie ib abard ur d idea could c only be be introduced by incompetent neophitos or political hucksters tle the territorial question la is a subject that hag has caused congress con sid erable trouble ever since their first organization it Is true that kentucky tennessee ohio louisiana indiana MI mis 1 sie stE sippi and other states were easily arranged and mostly passed as states into the union without territorial tutelage f but as party lines began to be more clearly deni denn denned benned lied ived and the slavery question pushed itself into greater reater prominence before the nation a jealousy sprang up betwee between if the north and the he south in regard to the acquisition of or new now states eaon each each party being of maintaining theli their own specific cinno status and neither party being willing to admit a southern southerner oil oll northern Northe rii ril state without a corresponding equivalent so as to preserve a balance of power between the two contestants irrespective in many instances of the fig rights ats of the people in the territories tb the case of michigan is a striking instance of this thia fact constituted a territory in 1905 1805 she was kept out of the union until 1837 waiting for a twin or duplicate from the south until wearied byl procrastination and tired of waiting on the slow progress ot of southern increase and goaded by federal appointees poin tees she burst her swaddling bands fell back on her reserved rights proclaimed her sovereignty framed a state constitution organized a state government sent her senators and representatives to congress and demanded admission and although tho ugh the proceedings were somewhat info informal r al and brusque she was received into the union it must be admitted however that as the united states form one great contracting contraction party they ought not and cannot be foncel forcel forced into the reception of states without their consent yet on the other hand they have no authority to form territorial governments nor any other than state govern ments and hence one wrong produced another as there is no provision in the constitution authorizing jhb organization of territorial governments as they had organized a government interfering with popular sovereignty they ought either bither to have nee ree received dived them or let t he the people govern themselves ves vea until they were prepared to receive them either let them alone or give them a republican form lorm of government arkansas being her twin southern sister was also admitted at the same time texas next entered the arena but being already a nation needed no preliminary arrangements application for deseret to unite california duing dating mr T taylors lors administration 2 parties bi began egan agan to do deaine define no their attitude and the territorial question threatening to tobe be fierce california deseret and new mexico all being expect ei to apply for admission the president wishing to remove he vexed question from congress sent i vo delegates ates one to utah the other to t di ili fornia beneral general wilson as the delegate to 10 utah came here in 1849 1819 with a for tor us to unite with california and to fori forin a state that the territorial question then agitating the nation might be removed from congress gress I 1 was one ofa ora of a committee who communicated munica ted with him on that subject being interested on this question he informed us that if we felt unwilling to form this union he was waa requested by the president to appeal to our dur patriotism to aid him in avoiding apprehended difficulties we ac ae ceedee to his request and agreed to form this union I 1 on the condition that we were each within two years to form a separate state constitution and government the other delegate was sent by water to california for abr the same purpose general left late in the fall with a part of his family and an escort ile he was detained for a length of time by a severe severo 14 snow now storm which prevented his arrival in california at the time specified the other delegate not being ab abeto 0 o to wait for him made other arrangements with the people of california and his mission was thus frustrated had it not been for a snow storm we should have been afree a free people beope as it isy is we have been living unar under t the e worst species of despotism a satrapy from that time to the present does freedom depend upon such adventitious circumstances cum stances are the liberties of men depending dapon japon such contingencies Is this the popular republican government guaranteed by the constitution of the united states popular sovereignty mr douglas compromise measures that so agitated the country were based really on the popular sovereignty of the deop people e mixed up with other matters foreign andee indeed from the subject but consider necessitate necessitated by lay former compacts and agre agreement agreements emen entered into by the antagonistic parties north and south this doctrine doc trino assumed the light of the people in the territories and everywhere e to manage their own municipal social and domestic clatters that it was the people and not riot the land that made the territory and that being governed by this instinctive inalienable night right it was for each individual territory or people to say whether they would bavo have slavery or aby anything thing else within the proscribed limits of the oi or no not any amy deviation from this principle was not fiot considered by the copular popular sovereignty party a qubit question loii of right but a question of compromise this course destroyed the tho missouri compromise nor was mr douglas alone alono on this question senator cass caba said there are two points I 1 always have maintained with reference to this subject farst first that congress under the constitution has no right to establish governments for sor fo r the territories secondly ft that under no circumstances have they the right to pass any quy law to regulate the internal affairs of the people inhabiting them american statesman page and when questioned on the thi pau subject act hald said further X maintain that no power is s glyen given by the constitution to establish territorial governments but that where an imperious necessity exists for such a measure the legislature who yields to it must look to his constituents for his justification ibid page governor Gb vernor walker of kansas in a state paper declares that popular sovereignty is a power that cannot be delegated but rests exclusively with the people lir sir calhoun is also very definite on this point and says the clause of the constitution which gives power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory tor and other property of the united states did not convey such a right it conferred no governmental power whatever no not a particle such then is the opinion of some of our most prominent statesmen we find the fo lowing from mr butler in speaking of the national domain but we hold no arbitrary authority over it we hold no arbitrary authority over anything whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation the constitution regulates our stewardship the constitution devotes the domain to union to jus justlee justice tico to defense to welfare and to liberty territorial governments not con from the above it is evident that the constitution nowhere authorizes the formation of territorial governments that their power to organize and legislate for territories 0 does not exist in that instrument and that this is also the opinion of soma some of our most prominent statesmen it is very plain lain iain that the power granted to congress to legislate legislate for the district of columbia and to regulate matters in arsenals dock yards and public grounds does not convey this right nor acanthe can the power given over the territory or other property of the united states be BO so construed as to refer to governmental ern mental or local legislation or to the government of the people in the territories congress is tho the representative or trustee of the nation and is i s limited and bound b bv that great groat instrument of trust the colstr constitution should trustees in their fiduciary capacity violate their trust in an estate or property they would be held res ros responsible for such act to the courts at law and their departure from or violation of their thein deed dee do articles or instrument of trust would bo be adjudged a sufficient cause for their condemnation dem nation A departure from an agreement in private ilfe life gives an immediate cause for action are the liberties liberal es of men and aud ant aut nations less loss important than doll dollars ara ars and ind cents associated with so great a nation at pre present serit and prospective as that of tho united states they assume very grave pr yort orations ort jort ions lons and demand the most careful car ruler ei ulry aulry from the guardians of the public in amt i rest expedients E nud compromises aro always good when confined within proper limits and constitutional bounds but when they exceed this a violation of falta faita and a breach of contract exists and the most serious and pernicious co consequences nse are the result owing to compromises of this nature the enunciation of the popular doctrine byar by mr douglas which in itself was correct toro up and scattered unconstitutional compromises disjointed the whole structure of political ethics and disrupted adda arid cut former usages and bounds but after but bursting sting like a thunderbolt on tile the astounded parties tended to clear b by its electric force the political hore horr horizon it Is true it was only a partial measure and only touched ono of the many abuses abases and was soon lost in the seething bubbling caldron of political partisanship if mr douglass the then chairman chair maa mua of the committee on territories had candidly and efficiently pursued this subject to its legitimate at 0 con alid and embraced in his grammo pro ammo territorial and other fundamental doctrinal abuses he would have stood foremost as the champion of human rights conferred an incalculable benefit on unborn generations purged the body politic from these unnatural excrescences and been immortalized by the nation instead of which he became inflated with popularity lost his equilibrium bedizened bedizen ed with power and position he talked flippantly ly menacingly about cutting out loathsome ulcers ulcers lost himself in the fogs of party and died and unlamented t I 1 but to return I 1 propose now to show that the organization of territorial gavern ments is in of the P coplea optea subversive of liberty and pernicious in their results the |
