| Show CBS OF HON GEORGE IV JONFA OF TEXAS ler the hoti o of aday april bolh 1883 1882 the tie house having under unger consideration the uenh contested e election action case acon CONTINUED linued i the gentleman from pennsylvania sir mr beltzhoover says there ia is nothing that congress cannot do in its treatment of the people of the territories but it seems to mo me that on this point ho lie has read to very little profit the decisions of the supreme court if ho lie has not been informed that with all our legisla tive power we cannot to save our lives make a law ex post facto in ill its nature or even impair impairing ilIg the dobli obligation aaion of contracts in the eclet celebrated rated case casc vs agris gris wold involving the legal tender question fuestion acue a case with which meiners members ers of the bar are all familiar the chief justice deli delivering 11 crin 1 tb the 0 opinion efort of the court grouped not dot t the ile powers of the Govern government in i n order to show that it could do thus and BO so but actually grouped the inhibitions by the constitution ion u upon on the powers of the states for UI what at purpose to show that by the very nature and genius olour of our gov government rn ex post facto laws and laws impairing in the obligations of contracts have no part or place in our entire system the federal government cannot exercise the power to pass any such law there bisno is no autuori authority cither either state or national that can call by an in act passed today to day make that which was done yester yesterday daya a crime the tile ej eighth alith section of the act of march ad 1882 has been referred to let me nio read it that no or any person co cohabiting abating with more than one woman t and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described aa as aforesaid in this section in in any in territory or other elace place over chicri which the united states have ave exclusive jurisdiction ris shall bo be entitled to vote that does not affect votes heretofore given at fit any election held in any such territory or other place not heretofore but hereafter held in such territory or other place or bo be eligible for election or appointment to not in the past but in the future or be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust lionor or emolument in under tinder or for any lucli territory or place or under the united states nor now in construing this provision I 1 submit that the general and well known rule that all statutes arc are to be construed so as to give them operation in the future applies to this case no statute can bo be construed as having retroactive or ex ar post effect even where there exists power lower in in the legislative body to give it t such effect uni unless m it bo be made so by ay iy express and unmistakable language now apply that rule to this eig eighth brkl section which it is claimed works sl a change 0 in the character hat that this case presents to us under the tile applin application tion of this rule the whole argument falls to the ground but accepting the confession abich which this argument implies of your inability to reach this case in any other mode let us concede that the tle lawmakers law makers intended to do just what you ou claim lias has been done to reach mr ir cannon and impose upon him a di disqualification qualification on account of polygamy can you do w it have you bonc done it Is not the law if so construed necessarily ex post facco faclo was not mr cannon duly elected to this congress did lie not acquire by virtue of his election a vested right of property in liis his office can you deprive him of it except by gai due u process proem of law Is it if true as you affirm that the people residing in the territories have no protection whatever Is it true as you affirm that the agis of american liberty does not cover those poor helpless people out there Is it true as you maintain that when a man invested in his own state with all the rights of american citizenship happens to transcend the territorial borders of the state sovereignty he loses his stature as a man and forfeits his rights rig litsas as an ail american citizen why WI sir this idea reverses the who whole Z 0 theory of our government our fathers thought that the governments were organized to conserve and protect the innate inherent rights of man inan yet you reverse that prin principle 1 1 I and in these halls familiar i in the e past the teachings of douglas and clay and other illustrious men you gravely tell us that the people of the territories have no rights whatever that wo aro are bound boun d to respect why gent gentlemen lemeno wo we are retrograding we have got away back of 1765 my friend from pennsylvania amr mr beltzhoover had better go a little behind thellis the history tory abathe that lie read when ho lie undertakes to deny these people the right of representation he ile could even go to the english parliament and get valuable lessons from the earl of camden when the same power was claimed for the british parliament over the american colon colonies icis what was the response of that noble lord he I 1 maintained th tb at whatever is a mans own is liia his own absolutely and no one lias has a right to take it from liim him without his consent whoever attempts to do 10 so does liim him nn an injury injury whoever does so commits a rol robbery bery whenever you undertake to deprive the people of utah of the right of representation of the right of a voice in their own legislation however wayward they may be you do those people cople an all injury and if sue successful you rob them not of rights which you gave them but of rights which tile they received from nature and natures god goa now then if sir mr cannon waa was elected and that is the main mai I 1 point t I 1 w wish wi is I i t to 0 impress imbres 8 upon all this LS gin house ouse he is is entitled to bw scat seat lie he has ling not been as I 1 maintain and I 1 think the intendment of this section clear in in support of that view deprived of it by this act of congress if tho tile net act had so intended it is unconstitutional tut ional and therefore inoperative uc he is not in any view view of its construction st et deprived of his right and the logical conclusion is that ho lie can not bo be excluded without abo abolishing lisbin ig the office of delegate from tai eliat at territory I 1 say then to gentlemen on tho the etli kotlier C r side aj de of the house in all fairness let them meet this question 1 as it confronts them let t them em meet this question fairly hero here it is mr cannon is supported by his constitutional right by bi his legal right you find the constitution and laws of your your country and hia his country lio wever widely you differ in your religious views arc are the same you f find them confronts con confronting fronti ing you lifey stand between you and and him they arc are opposed to you the s spirit of our constitution and laws is is opposed to you to pay say nothing of their express language what are you going 0 in to do what shall wo we dol do that esthe is the grave rave and solemn question for us to decide will we do as our predecessors have do done ne recognize the right the right of rc representation in tj alio 0 people of the territories the right of air mr cannon to come here and voice their interests interest jn in representing them in assert asserting irig their rights right st in communicating to congress such information as may be deemed nee necessary in their treatment or willylu ignore these rights here you are brought brou glit in front of the constitution itself you cannot get around it and you cannot get aver over it I 1 is i s no escape there is is but one alternative you must cither either admit cannon or you must trample the constitution of your country under your feet I 1 do not propose at this time to undertake to discuss or even to state clr constitutional questions involved as afflec affecting ting the rights of the people in a territory it is not a new question I 1 accept as frue true that construction st of the second clause of the third section of the fourth article of the constitution in reference to tho the power of congress over the territories ries as stated by the gentleman from pennsylvania air mr beltzhoover under that clause of the constitution ution congress has iho the power to do what to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting spec ting the territory or other property belonging to the united states I 1 submit to any fair minded man inan whether both the legal and grammatical intendment of this language is not unmistakable docs does not the qualifying ying word other in its relation to the subject place territory in the category with property I 1 submit that the plain lain intendment of the language tto tho word other referring bael back to territory puts it in juxtaposition with property I 1 will not now repeat what to my mind has been the unanswerable argument of cass and douglas on this question I 1 desire to affirm that I 1 believe as they maintained that tho the power here given iven is limited to property as I 1 land aji in u alie territories at the time the tile constitution was adopted territorial government had already been provided for tho the northwest territory tho tile first congress under tho the constitution of the united states passed an ail act confirming the territorial government in its relation to tho the new government succeed succeeding ill and supplanting the old that is all all it did they elected and sent their representative I 1 to congress they chose t their representatives and lawmakers under it here wo we have then I 1 may say taking it in its historical relation and bearing a direct expression odthe sense of those who framed tal the 0 constitution the history of their struggle with british power was too fresh in tho the minds of our fathers for them to assume that the people who inhabited the territories had no rights they recognized in their brothers residing in a territory the same capability the same right to treat regulate and control their own affairs that they had so recently asserted for themselves that is part and parcel as it were of tho the constitution itself the clause ito to make all nil needful rules and reu regulations lations etc to which I 1 have just referred was intended to and did give congress Qs power to establish a s system stein of land surveys to dispose oland of and regular regulate tho the sale of public lands at thai that time it might bo be reasonably sup cup posed congress was not looking to t the acquisition of further terri territory tory but congress was empowered bj by the constitution to make treaties and declare war and under the power to make treaties congress could acquire territory this very territory of utah in tho the execution of that power it did acquire this territory tile force of analogy and the example of the framers of tho tile constitution can leave but little room for doubt as to relations of rights and powers beti between Neen the government and the territories conform conforming i ing to tho e relations us as interpreted by analogy and example congress organized territorial government securing to the people the right 0 of f local self government the rights of the people in that territory were recognized recognized as were those of the people in the northwest territory thus conforming to the genius of our government the people accepted the government thus provided and by accepting made it their own if I 1 had bad time afi mr speaker I 1 would like to reproduce some of the fourth of july orations I 1 have read on this great subject why I 1 have been so weak so credulous as actually to believe that all just laws derive their sanction from the consent of the governed I 1 have been so week and credulous as an all american citizen in fact I 1 used to pride my myself in the genius of our institutions and in the faith that such was american doctrine and such the spirit of our constitution and outlaws our laws TO an BE |
