| Show VEST OH THE QUESTION OF tee THE HOUR IM the tho senata senate oa on the of february during daring the debate on ort the edmunds bill senator vest made the following remarks as reported in the congressional record icer mr president I 1 desire to say only a few words I 1 shall detain the senate but a few moments I 1 desire to take notice of the position taken yesterday by gentlemen who criticized the remark I 1 then made my idea is embodied in the amendment which I 1 have just offered I 1 bhail shall not undertake to add anything to the authorities and the able argument made by the senator from alabama mr morgan if thisbe this benot a bill of attainder under the theory of the constitution of the united states there never has been a bill of attainder proposed in all history never neven in the darkest days of the stuarts or the tudor tudors never in any of the darkest days of despotism I 1 undertake to bay say here weighing my words deliberately was there ever enacted a statute more exactly within the meaning of a bill of attainder than the seventh and eighth sections of this bill the first question which meets us in cimine limine is does the constitution of the united states apply to the territories or are those territories riffi completely at the mercy of dim eisser fisser dilulo ted here hera yesterday 8 by ent trusting to memory the senator said it merely shows chows that a territory in that position was outside ot of the fundamental law IWO and was in a position to be iggi ligi legislated slated sor lor at the will and discretion ot of without any limitation why mr president with all respect to the senator from Flor fior florada florida ida lda enat a monstrous doctrine is this that auy any portion of the territory of these united states inhabited by the people of the united states are at the mercy of congress without any chief justice taney did not think so when ho he declared that the citizen and the national constitution went into the terri territories tories side by side under the constitution of the country and he said in illustrating the proposition that there was a constitutional limitation on the power of congress with reference to the territories as well as with reference to states ho he baid said for example no one wo we contend that warrem can make any jaw law in a territory Torri terni tory tort respecting tho establishment of religion or uha tha free exercise thereof the or abridging the tho freedom of speech or of t tho the ross ress roes or the right weg rig lit of the people of the territory te peaceably to assemble and jo 0 o petition betl tho government fan far the tha redress ot of gri sri V anees ances nor can congress Con conk gregs esa deny to tho people the right t to keep and bear arms nor the right to trial tr I 1 by baury juny jury nor compel any one to be a wit nass nasa against a t himself eit elf in a criminal proceed inar I 1 these powers and others in la relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here hore to enumerate are in express and positive terms denied to the general government men tand and the hights rights of private property have been guarded with frith equal care bo so he heroes goes for fon on page after page P age announcing the proposition which I 1 hold to be self seif evi evident evl dent that under the constitution the limitations u upon the power of congress must be bp e applied to the p people op ae of the territories as well as to the tha people of the states and then the further arises arh arb es which seems beems to be math question ema in in its the further arises arh arb es which seems beems to be math question ema in in its demonstration poti fori can the congress of the united states pass such a bill as this for the territories it being in the nature of an ex post facto law the constitution says in so many words congress shall ilot hot pass any bill of attainder or export facto jacco law either in the states or the territories anywhere within the territorial domain and jurisdiction luris diction of this government then what is a bill of attainder attain fer jer the supreme court of the united states hns has stated it in language so distinct that there ean dan be no question about it after quoting the clause of the constitution to which I 1 have referred judge field said A bill of attainder la is a legislative act hiob which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial senators what do you propose to do do you give thebe theae people in the territory of utah a judicial trial do you give them the forms fornis of trial or the right to prove that they are guiltless of the charge made against them I 1 know it is said that this applies to future transactions or future punishments it applies to no such thing A bill of attainder inflicts punishment without a judicial trial and in this bill the seventh and eighth sections prohibit a judicial trial you destroy the courts you destroy the functions of every territorial of officer fleer and you put in lieu and stead thereof a commission of five men responsible to their own passions and prejudices alone As the senator from alabama dir din mr morgan said I 1 know the feeling against any senator who stands here and criticises criticizes even the language of the bill inter arma went silent feges leges and if there be not flagrant war in in this domain of ours today to day all the passions which evoke war are in with lire and instinct with feeling I 1 am not here to defend polygamy I 1 would regent resent the imputation as a personal insult from any man at any time or in any place but while I 1 abhor polygamy while 1 4 I have denounced ft it while I 1 have introduced trod the two first bills introduced in this senate against it iby ity I 1 revere the consal constitution aution OF ot my country and the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to every american I I 1 tell you now senators of the united states pass pabs the bill and you establish a precedent that will come home tol toi to plague iague lague you for all time to come the be feeling that today to day exists against polygamy may exist tomorrow against any church against any class in this broad land and then what this constitution meant to guard against the waves of passion mounting high we shall be told that the constitution of the united states enabled congress to pass this act which in its every feature Is a bill of attainder denounced by that instrument as against public policy and absolutely void Mr President the supreme court courts in the case of cummings vs the salt safe saiu salu c af 0 nf from which the it if the punishment be less than death the act metis 13 termed a bill of pains and penalties within tho the meaning or of tho tha constitution bills of attainder include bills of pains and penal ta in these cases eases the tha legislative addition ui to its legitimate functions exercises r ain liu ea the powers and office of ofa judge audgo what alewe are we doing 0 n here we are acting as a judiciary Judi clar ciar we declare that every person who is a polygamist lyga without trial without vak invoking the aid of the judiciary at all shall be punished in a certain man ner ah ab but we are told that there is no punishment in this bill we W are told that taking away the right of suffrage is ia no punishment mr air president we in this ibis bill take away the right to hold office and the supreme court has decided in that that Is a punishment as much as if a man be convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary the disabilities created by the constitution of missouri must bo be regarded as penalties what were they that you should not vote or hold office I 1 know them very well and understand them very fully they thay constitute kituto punishment any gentleman who had lived under that constitution for nive five fl v e years would come to the conc conclusion lusle n nature that it was slightly of a we do nob dot agree munsel counsel of missouri ilfe lire that efto to punish one la is to deprive him hmo ahmo of f liberty or property tz the same argument we hear now n ow and that to take from him anything less lesa than theeo thero Is BO no punishment at all WL nhe the learned counsel does not use those these terms fimm life liberty and proper ryas tyas as every right known to the law lie he does not include under liberty freedom from outrace outrage OB on the tho feelings aa as well as restraints on the person penson rsm he does not include under property those 11 estates which one rr ay amula acquire in pro fro tess toss mons tons though bhough ugh they are often the tho Bour sour cool co of the highest S t emoluments emol emoi t and honors mr president presidents we are told that the doctrine I 1 J have evoked ia is true as to taking away froba from a manthe mauthe man the right to practice his profession but that it does not ap apply ply to the tb e night right rig lit to vote or to hold hoid hr ld office let me as ask k gentlemen to I 1 listen isten while I 1 proceed p roce ed with this opinion tha deprivation or of any rights civil or political previously elo eja enjoyed avd may to be punishment tho circumstances attending and the t e causes of tho the deprivation determining this a fact act disqualification from office may ba be punishment ish ment as in cases ot at conviction upon impeachment peach ment disqualification from the pu pur pup r sua aus u of a lawm a vocation cr vr from positions fosi tion tiou s of mm tho the privileged of 8 ap appearing pearin lu UN or acting scans aa as an 44 executor cutout 2 M ardlan adlan may aiso also and often has been imposed as punishment then judge field proceeds with historical examples to show that de do privation of has been iu in all civilized countries coun tries a punishment in this bill you propose that no man shall hold office who has been guilty of the offenses denounced in this act and you propose that without any trial before any auy judicial tribunal whatever if tf that would not be a bill of attainder or a bill of pains and penalties in any country on the globe I 1 should like to know what could be lir nir air edmunds will the senator from orom missouri allow me to ask him a question mr vest certainly ay iy mr edmunds I 1 should be glad to know upon the principle he Is now announcing how the senator can defend the fourteenth amend ment to the constitution of the united states which declared by a sheer act of the will of the state that thata a certain class of persons who had been engaged in war against the united states should not be entitled to hold office although before that time under the constitutions and laws of their own states as well as of the united states they were entitled to the right to hold office mr vest with all respect to the senator from vermont that question is hardly worthy of serious consideration that is a portion of the constitution of the united states and the constitution can be amended under its own provisions at any time and in any respect but here is an act under the constitution here is a law professing to be passed under the limitations of the tg constitution which it violates mr edmunds but my friend will not forge forget t he is 18 a M missourian mis mib iss himself that the inhibition against holding office in the state of missouri was waa by a constitutional provision of that sovereign state and if that will not stand then how can thib this stand mr vest but the supreme court of the united states declared that that constitutional provision of missouri violated the constitution of the united states stages mr edmunds I 1 differ from my gy else of any political n acair nir vest in regard to holding office this decision is clear mr edmunds but the senator will certainly remember that the question there was whether a particular person had a right to carry on his function as a minister of the gospel which is not supposed in my part of the country to be a political ical right mr air vest mr president I 1 know ve very well weli the cummings case came up on the right liht of cummings Cum minga to ex arcise a clerical vocation in other word 3 he was a roman catholic priest judge field went further and defined what a bill of attainder was under the constitution and what was it shall I 1 read it again what is a bill of of attainder it is taking away an 0 office fal c 0 of f trust or honor from a man w without it h aou t a judici cial clai honor from a man w without it h t a judici cial clai trial he held so ao in in that opinion and when the senator from vermont can overturn that decision then he can defend the seventh and eighth sections of this bill and not before mr edmunds may I 1 ask my friend another question for we are both desirous of getting at the real point mr vest certainly mr edmunds then on his prin elpie how can congress pals pass it has not yet passed to be bure sure and therefore it is not a case in point foint BO so far the bill that Is now pending on our ealen owlen calendar idar to terminate the official functions of all the internal revenue collectors of the united states who now by law hold during good behavior how can we vacate all those offices mr vest when that question Is under discussion I 1 will meet it I 1 affife office resume me congress can abolish any mr air edmunds but it does not propose to abolish the office of in revenue collector mr vest I 1 do not know the provisions of the bill in regard to internal revenue collectors but I 1 undertake to say any that if there is a provision in that bill which assumes to take his office away from an internal revenue collector as am a punishment for crime by act net of congress without trial before a court it isun is un constitutional that thatis is all I 1 have llave to say in regard to that bill which I 1 do not recollect ever to have read I 1 declare here that the supreme court of the united states has haa over and over proclaimed that whenever you undertake to deprive a man of a position of honor trust or profit without a trial before a judicial tribunal by an act of congress that act of congress becomes a bill of attainder and is ancon unconstitutional and void and the only question now before us is does this bill 1111 do that thing its words are ape plain distinct and exact not only does it so provide but it goes further and pro vides that on a judicial trial no man shall alt ait on a jury whose heart entertains one bingle single prejudice hi in favor of polygamy with a jury eo so constituted with a judge appointed by the executive of the united states to try all offenders we ae ate still told that this thia bill will be inoperative and useless unless we violate the constitution and say further that there shall be no trial except before these five commissioners in other words you strike down what these gentlemen are pleased to term and what I 1 term too an anti republican territorial government and you propose to set up an anti republican star chamber in the territory of utah gentlemen proclaim proclaim thai that the hl which within the dark chamber inaugurated augu rated by brigham young and joe smith carry out their ecclesiastical theory to the destruction st of both body and soul boul la monstrous and so it is 19 but here we p propose to inaugurate another star chamber ol 01 five men to nobody governed alone by their own prejudices or passions or feelings or opinions who can say eay who shall be elected who can say my who shall vote and who can pass upon all laws who can say to the people of the united states we order thib thil thing never in the days of the inquisition was waa there any more questionable mode of what is the limitation on their power Is there any appeal from them mr president the principle is wrong unconstitutional and against every principle that the american people heretofore have been accustomed to revere mr Edmund edmunds 3 may I 1 interrupt my friend again liay may slay I 1 call cali hla hia attention to a decision of the supreme court courtr ot f |
