New York Times vol. 9 no. 2664

              FROM WASHINGTON. 
THE HOMESTEAD BILL IN THE SENATE. 
Speech of Mr. Wilkinson, of Minnesota. 
The House on Polygamy and Slavery. 
Speech of Mr. Eli Thayer on the Latter-day Saints. 
Special Dispatch to the New-York Times. 
WASHINGTON, Tuesday, April 3.
 NEW-YORK OFFICIALS UNDER INVESTIGATION. 
The Investigating Committee had Messrs. BUT-TERWORTII and AUGUSTUS SCHELL before them to-day. Mr. SCHELL was asked to furnish a list of subscribers to the New-York Hotel Fond, but he declined com-plying, although when last before the Committee he expressed a willingness to do so, if he had it. On re-flection he declines, as it is private matter among gentlemen, and he doubts the propriety of furnishing their names without their consent. He ad-mitted he had frequently and cheerfully con-tributed money to aid in elections, and expected to do so again. In reply to a question as to management of the New-York Custom-house, he re-sponded that there was nothing connected with it which he or any one else would desire to conceal. He knew of nothing implicating in the slightest de-gree, the President or his Administration, with the raising of funds for political purposes. The Commit-tee have under consideration the propriety of bringing Mr. SCHELL before the House, for refusing to produce the private papers supposed to be in his possession. Mr. BUTTERWORTH testified that he had contributed money to be used in elec-tions in 1856, because he considered the success of the Democratic Party essential to the welfare of the country. Col. FREMORT he considered only an instrument in the hands of political specula-tors ; and his success as dangerous to the Union. The Committee informed the witness that they only desired facts, and not reasons. Mr. BUTTERWORTH re-plied that he considered the question impertinent, and only answered lest improper deductions might be drawn from his refusal to do so, but that the explana-tion must accompany his testimony. In reply to the question, if the President had not agreed to retain him in office, in considera-tion of his sustaining his Lecompton policy, he replied, "No;" adding that no man would have dared to make such a proposition to him. Witness was then asked if he had not written to Mr. HASKINS, urging him to sustain the President's Lecompton policy. Mr. B. replied that if Mr. HASKIN would pro-duce his (BUTTERWORTH'S) letters, he would produce the replies, and these would answer the inquiry of the Committee. The Committee promised to see Mr. HASKIN, and let the witness know to-morrow, if the proposition be accepted. The next question was, had the witness sent money into Mr. HASKIN'S district, with a view of defeating that gentleman? Mr. BUTTERWORTH answered that he had for the same reason that he had contributed money in 1856 ; he thought the success of the Democratic Party conducive to the best interests of the country, and had labored for that success. The Committee again reminded the witness that they only wanted facts. Witness was then asked if others had not contributed, and who they were? He replied nearly all the prominent Democrats in New-York, he presumed had done so, but he should mention no names. The Committee inquired if he had not given leave of absence to the employees of the As-say Office, that they might go into Mr. HASKINS District, and electioneer and vote against that gentleman. Witness replied that he had given such leave, and explained, the Committee objecting, that when men were idle he cheerfully granted leave of absence that they might not be about where the bullion was. After the arrival of a steamer, all hands were busy for nearly two weeks. Then would follow ten or twelve idle days. When on leave, employees attended public or private business, as best suited their incination, without any control from the head of the office. Mr. BUTTERWORTH further testified that there was no fact within his knowledge which implicated in any way the President of the United States, or any member of his Cabinet. He appears again be-fore the Committee to-morrow. 
PACIFIC RAILROAD
At the meeting of the Pacific Railroad Committee, this evening, a definite conclusion was arrived at, by the adoption of the following resolution, offered by MR. CURTIS, the Chairman :
Resolved, That the road shall start from two points-one on the western border of the State of Missouri and the other on the western border of Iowa, with two converging lines bearing westward, and uniting within two hundred miles of the Missouri River, and thence proceeding by a single trunk line, by the nearest and best route to the Bay of San Francisco, or to navigable waters of the Sacramento, in the State of California. 
The Committee instructed the Chairman to report a bill drawn upon this basis. 
Mr. BLAIR, of Pennsylvania, offered a resolution confining the corporators or contractors to the use of American iron, which was adopted unanimously.
MR. WILKINSON’S SPEECH
Mr. WILKINSON’S speech to-day in Senate on Home-stead bill was very able, and the vote on the motion to take up the House bill is regarded as a test vote on the bill itself. The vote stood 26 to 24. 
ARMY RESIGNATION
The resignation of Second Lieut. LEROY NAPIER, Jr., United States Army, has been accepted by the President, to take effect February 28, 1860.
From the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Tuesday, April 3. 
CHARLES E. SINCLAIR has resigned his position of Associate Judge of the United States Supreme Court of Utah. Judge CRADLEBAUGH of that Territory is now in Washington. It is not known that any of the Federal officers excepting Gov. CUMMINGS and Surveyor-General STAMBAUGH are now in Utah. 
The House Post-office Committee have nearly unanimously agreed to recommend the restoration of the mail to the steamship Isabel, and the Committee of Ways and Means will, there is little if any doubt, report an appropriation of fifty thousand dollars per annum for her mail service between Charleston and Key West, in addition to the ocean postage between Havana and Key West. 
Senator HUNTER has emphatically denied the truth of the dispatch from St. Louis, charging that he had written a letter to Springfield, Ill., urging the Cook delegates to attend the Charleston Convention, and intimating that their expenses will be paid. 
If the proposed amendment to the Pacific Tele-graph bill be adopted by the House, there is reason to believe that the line will not be built for years to come, as the capital to insure its construction will not be supplied. It will cost, probably , from eight hundred thousand to a million of dollar, besides large sums annually to keep it in working order. 
SENATE.
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, APRIL 3.
Mr. GREEN, of Missouri, (Dem.,) from the Territorial Committee, reported bills organizing Arizona and Colorado. 
He also offered the following preamble and resolutions, which were laid over :
Whereas, Congress, by act of August, 1858, required the First Comptroller of the Treasury to adjust the damages one to E.H. CORMICK and A.G. RAMSEY, on ac-count of the abrogation of the contract by the Postmas-ter-General, to carry the mail via Vera Cruz, Acapulco and San Francisco, in the Judgment of Congress, the law aforesaid declared that the contract existed, and further, that the duty was imposed on the First comp-troller to adjust the account ; and whereas, WILLIAM MEDILL, First Comptroller, instead of proceeding to exe-cute the said law of Congress, did undertake and affirm that said contract was never abrogated, thereby intend-ing to defeat the clearly expressed will of Congress, and has set at defiance the decision of his predecessor, Hon. ELISHA WHITTLESEY, and in so doing, the said WILLIAM MEDILL has assumed the prerogative of nullifying the will and opinion of Congress, by them solemnly de-clared ; and has practically refused to obey the order of Congress. 
Therefore be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, that the said WILLIAM MEDILL, the First Comptroller of the Treasury aforesaid, has justly incurred the disapprobation of Congress. 
Resolved further, That in the judgement of Congress, the conduct of the said WILLIAM MEDILL makes it imp-roper that he should longer remain First Comptroller of the Treasury.
Mr. MASON, of Virginia, (Dem.,) from the Committ-ee on Foreign Affairs, reported a bill defraying the expenses of the Japanese Embassy on their arrival in the country. 
Mr. Green introduced an Act to amend an Act from the House relative to the Overland Mail service.
On motion of Mr. BAYARD, of Delaware, (Dem.,) the bill concerning appeals and writs of error was taken up and passed. 
On motion of MR. BAYARD, the bill for the supply of vacancies in certain offices was taken up and passed. It provides for allowing the Court to fill vacancies in District-Attorneys’ or Marshals’ offices occurring during the session of the Court, until appointments can be made by the President. 
On motion of Mr. MASON, the bill providing for the adjudication of the claims of the Rhode Island Com-pany against Paraguay, by the appointment of a Com-missioner by each Government to sit in Washington three months, in accordance with treaty stipulations, was taken up and passed. 
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, (Dem.,) wanted the Homestead bill up and passed to a final vote. It was a very important measure. 
The Indian Appropriation bill came up, and the amendments of the Senate were adhered to. After which the bill was postponed till Thursday. 
The House Homestead bill was taken up, the pend-ing amendment being the Senate bill. 
Mr. FITCH, of Indiana, (Dem.,) offered an amend-ment that all lands that come under the provisions of this bill should be only those subject to private entry at the passage of the law. 
Mr. WILKINSON, of Minnesota, (Rep.,) said that the measure of giving free homes to actual settlers was one which had long occupied his attention, and for which he felt a deep interest. He had long lived among new settlers and had seen the workings of the present land law. He had seen immense swindling carried on under this system. The Government turns speculator and seeks to fill its Treasury by the sale of land. If Government does this, why should not people also speculate, even if they had to break the laws to do so? He had looked for a change, and was glad to see it in this form of the Homestead bill. He was in favor of the House bill, and thought the Sen-ate bill lacked force and vitality, and did not reach the real merits of the case. Some of its re-strictions are illiberal where liberality should be the chief provision of such a measure. It also seeks to create distinctions between persons and classes, when the real purpose of such a bill should be to give all our people free homes. He had not supposed a measure so just, so beneficent, would receive any serious apposition from any party. Therefore he was astonished at the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. CLINGMAN,) which was an attempt to defeat the bill. If that Senator was sincere and can see nothing in this great measure beyond a mere donation ; if his range of vision is limited to such a narrow view, he certainly could not understand the mean-ing of this measure. Mr. W. read from the speech of Mr. CASS on this subject, repelling the charge that this measure was unjust. He repudiated the idea that the grant was in any sense a charity.  Men are fond of saying the Gov-ernment was not a charitable institution. Will they go further and ay the Government should not be a speculator and a monopolist? This measure was just and proper, and intended to promote the un-bounded interests of the whole country. If the Gov-ernment would but recognize the truth of nature, that the wild lands of the nation belong to him who settles them, improves and cultivates them, it would then recognize what is but a common principle of equity. Mr. WILKINSON then cited cases of the monopoly of land by despotic Governments, to show the immense evils of such a system, referring partic-ularly to Ireland, where large landed monopolies ex-ist, and a large majority of her sons have no legal right to earn their bread from their mother earth. Our present land system has a tendency to increase the spirit of monopoly and of speculation, and he hoped to see it changed, and thought the Government should adopt a principle far older than the nation itself, and that the public land should be sold no more forever. He would like to see the Government ordain that the people should inherit the land, and that the same b granted, in limited qualities, to every man who is anxious to earn an honorable living for him-self by the cultivation of the soil. He would have the Government, in its Homestead bill, address itself to the laboring masses of the country, to those who are too often ground down in the unequal conflict be-tween capital and labor, to the poor man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow, and to him who feeds on the uncertain crumbs that fal from the rich man’s table. He would have the Government say to these persons, “There is a vast unset-tled domain for your occupation. Take it-live upon it-cultivate it and it shall be yours.” And when as was said by a distinguished member of the House of Representatives, the poor man is put in possession of his portion of the soil, and is secured in the enjoy-ment of the home from which his wife and children shall not be driven, then he is raised above poverty, not only in the land, but still more by the virtues which he cultivates at his heart, while he honestly tills the soil. And then, too, he no longer ministers to the undue accumulation of wealth by others. He objected to the Senate bill, because it shut out from its benefits the unmarried man-the men who were really the pioneers and early settlers of the new country. They go where families cannot go, and they furnish more and better protection to the western frontiers than all the armed soldiers that could be sent there. This bill should look beyond the immediate benefit to be conferred, and if properly de-vised, it will be for the immediate benefit of the masses. It will advance the cause of sorrowing humanity everywhere, no merely in the Western States, but all over this broad land from Maine to Texas. These are the ends which the guardians of the nation’s weal should strive to accomplish in the discharge of the high trust reposed in them. 
Pass through the streets of your great cities and see the boys of all ages willing to work but finding noth-ing to do, an exposed to all the temptations incident to such a situation. Who does not wish these boys might be rescued from the constant strife between vice and virtue., in which vice is so often obtains the mastery? Let them be told there is a home and a pos-ession for them. Let them be told that they can go to the wild lands of the West and conquer a home. We shall then have less need for the erection of prisons and houses of refuge. And when the ambition of these young emigrants has been attained, and when the rich earth begins to yield her fruits into the hand of the young settler, he will require no stimulating legislation to drive him into matrimony, but will feel the necessity of a helpmeet in the home he was won by toil. Nature legislates in these matters much bet-ter than men. He had another objection to the Sen-ate bill. It would operate unjustly as to the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Pugh) say he was in favor of it on that ground. 
Mr. PUGH, of Ohio, (Dem.,) said he should have amended that portion of the bill.  The benefit was confined to heads of families to prevent fraud. The young men can still go forward and make claim un-der the Preemption law.
MR. WILKINSON said that all he claimed was the same provisions as were in the Preemption law. So far as his experience went, unmarried men had been no more efficient in robbing the Government than some married men, and in his opinion they were quite as honest as older men. The young unmarried man can go where he could not take a family, and by giving this inducement to young men they will go forward and get a home, erect a cabin first and then bring on the family. The bill will operate unjustly on our foreign population, and in this it fall far below the Preemption law. The Sen-ator from Tennessee (Mr. NICHOLSON) stated that the Senate bill provided that any person who filed his inten-tion to become a citizen might enter land. He desired to correct this error. Here he raised his complaint, and found another objection o the Senate bill. Here was another act of injustice. The first section of the bill-[this section was read by the Clerk]- would exclude all persons who may immigrate to this country after the passage of the bill until they had become citizens. He would make this bill as broad as the Preemption law. Heretofore it had been the policy of the Government to encourage emigration, but now this was resisted to encourage emigration, but now this was resisted by the present Administration. The Secretary of the Interior says, “that by this new policy of the Homestead bill an undue stimulus would be given to emigration, and the land bounty can no longer be held out as an inducement for the future military ser-vice.” He (Mr. WILKINSON) hoped that we never again could hold out such a motive as to give bounty land warrants as an inducement for military service. This high functionary would now, when the Government has become strong and powerful, turn away the descendants of those men who, by their blood and treasure, contributed to the establishment of a free Government on this Con-tinent. Mr. WILKINSON read extracts from the proceedings of the Congress of the Republic of Colum-bia, in 1823, proposing to give free homes to emi-grants, and also an extract from the proclamation of the King of Persia, offering the same inducement to emigrants. The Secretary of the Interior might have taken lessons in statesmanship from the young Republic of Columbia, and he would hardly have been equal to the duties of a Cabinet officer under the heathen King of Persia. Is it in consequence of the Executive opposition that the authors of this Senate bill have been disposed to so frame it as to discourage emigration? He hoped not, and he hoped that this provision of the House bill would be adopted, by which all who declare their intention to become cttizens may be permitted to en-joy all the rights of those who are already citizens. There is still another objection, stronger than any yet noticed ; the Senate bill provides that only such land shall be entered as is subject to private entry-that is already surveyed and exposed for sale. The settler often goes in advance of the survey, but this bill disregards entirely the early pioneer, who braves all the hardships, and allows the more timid ones to come in afterward and reap all the benefits. In his own state there were millions of acres of unoccupied public land open under the Pre-emption law, but little or none subject to private entry. The friends of the Homestead measure ask for a practical bill. They want an operative bill. In plain words, they want an honest bill, which will ac-complish in fact the thing which it assumes to main-tain in theory. There was still one last objection to which he wished to call attention. This was, the provision limiting the application of the bill to alter-nate sections of this land. He regarded this provision as particularly objectionable, because there seems to be a strong desire, on the part of the Govern-ment, to make the energy and enterprise of the people the subject of speculation and aggrandizement. This provision would place the settlers who secured homes under this bill at a distance from each other, and consequently tend to the embarrassment of the new settlements on the frontier. He did not approve of Government speculation in any case, and most of all when it undertook to gorge the treasury from the sale of lands, the market value of which has been greatly enhanced by reason of the settlements about them. The first settlers of the country are those who are obliged to build roads, bridges, school-houses and churches, and, in short, to create everything essen-tial and necessary to the happiness and welfare of a civilized community, and it was apparent how much more arduous their labors would be in consequence of the remoteness of settlements or neighbors. The social and municipal exigencies of a settlement de-mand that it shall be as compact as possible. The bill which has passed the House is tree from these objections. It seeks to carry out the true objects and purposes of this wise policy. It places before the people this measure in the full spirit of its application, making no distinction as to persons, and no unjust distinctions as to the lands affected by its provisions. But if we cannot accomplish this result, if the Senate has determined to reject the House bill, he should endeavor to gain the same end through amendments, and if these should be rejected he might be inclined to support the Senate bill, for the recognition of a fair principle. The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. JOHNSON,) has spoken of this measure as being above and beyond all party issues, and he agreed with him. He believed the measure to be far higher than parties or partisan claims. It appeals di-rectly to the great heart of the nation, and to those who are struggling from day to day, and it will be welcomed by those who are ever patient, ever en-during, ever vigorous and ever hopeful. Why then should any one attempt to narrow it down in any spirit of party platform, or of sectionalism? Cannot the interest, the wisdom and lofty statesmanship of all parties be combined in support of a general principle, which history, experience and common sense, all proclaim to be just and proper? The views of politicians should be modeled to suit the interests of the people and not of party. Too much time of the National Legislature has, for the last few years, been taken up in fighting many battles for vague abstractions, and too little has been em-ployed in the defence of acknowledged rights. He sustained the Homestead bill because he honestly be-lieved it to be truly just and wise, and calculated to enhance the prosperity of the great mass of the people. If the gentlemen on the other side of the chamber choose to regard this measure as sectional, and cannot reconcile it with their party faith, then they, and they alone will have made the issue, and he apprehended those with whom he had the honor to act politically will be ready to meet it. Then it will go upon the record and will be spread before the country, that the Democratic Party re-sisted the liberal policy of the Homestead bill, and it would also be spread abroad that no Republican in this body was either ashamed or afraid of the measure to grant free homes to the actual settlers on the public land. May we not hope that this measure will be perfected in the spirit of harmony and good will, with no disturbing sec-tional feeling, and that it will receive the support of all sections of the country, because it is for the com-mon benefit of the whole country Standing upon his own soil, the settler rises to the full dignity of manhood. He is independent from the hour in which he becomes the owner of a free farm, and is indepen-dent of everything save his country and his God, Open up a home to him, and you will have found the surest method for the perpetuation of the Govern-ment. You will have sanctified his patriotism, and he can never prove untrue to the Constitution and the law, when his wife and children are enjoying the benefits of a free home protected by that Constitution and those laws. 
Adjourned- 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
WASHINGTON, Tuesday, April 3. 
The House resumed the consideration of the Anti-Polygamy bill. 
The following is the bill as reported from the Committee : 
Bill to punish and prevent the practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah, and which sets forth: 
Whereas, It is admitted that polygamy is permitted by the Municipal regulations of one of the Territories of this Union, and is sought to be justified on the ground that this abomination in a Christian country is a religious rite of the inhabitants of said Territory; and 
Whereas, No principle of self-government or citizen sovereignty can require or justify the practice of such moral pollution; therefore, 
Resolved, &c., That if any person or persons, being married, and an inhabitant of any Territory of the United States, or other places over which the United States possess exclusive jurisdiction, shall inter-marry with any person or persons, or cohabit with any person or persons, or live with any person or persons, as partners, acknowledging conjugal rela-tions, the former husband and wife being alive, he, she, or they, so offending, shall, on conviction there-of, pay a fine not exceeding $500, and be imprisoned not less than two years, nor more than five years ; provided, nevertheless, that this section, or anything therein contained, shall not extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall absent himself or herself one from the other, for the space of five years, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to any person or persons who shall be, at the time of such marriage, divorced by competent authority, or to any person or persons whose former marriage, by sentence of competent authority, shall have been declared void. 
SEC. 2. Be it further enacted, that the following or-dinance of the Provisional Government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely, "An ordinance incor-porating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," passed Feb. 8, in the year 1841, and adopted, reenacted, and made valid by the Governor and Leg-islative Assembly of the Territory of Utah by an act passed Jan. 19, in the year 1855, entitled "An act in relation to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah Territory, their publication and distribution," and all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are disapproved and annulled: Provided that this act shall be so limit-ed and construed as not to affect or interfere with the right of property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right to "worship God according to the dictates of conscience," but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, how-ever disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecration or other con-trivances. 
The substitute proposed by Mr. BRANCH, of North Carolina, (Dem.,) is as follows: 
Be it enacted that the third and fourth sections of the act, entitled, "An act to establish a Territorial Government for Utah, approved 9th of September, 1850, be, and the same are, hereby repealed. 
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That hereafter the Legislative power as defined and limited in said act, shall be vested in the Governor, and thirteen of the most fit and discreet persons of the territory to be called the Legislative Council who shall be appointed biennially by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among the citizens of the United States residing there-in, and without reference to any districts which have heretofore been laid off.
 SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the first ap-pointments under this act shall be made on or before the 4th of March, 1861, on which day said appoint-ments shall have effect. 
Mr. MCCLERNAND, of Illinois, (Dem.,) on the re-sumption of the discussion this morning, proceeded to sustain his assertion made yesterday, that there was no instance in which Congress had enacted a special penal code to Operate in the organized Territories. The act of 1790 was general in its application, and extended to treason and other offences against the United States. Congress, by erecting Territorial Government, had delegated certain powers, so that the criminal became amenable to the local law. He admitted that polygamy is a great evil and a nuisance in the eyes of Christendom, and that it de-serves to be extirpated, but as the execution of this proposed law is left to the Mormons, does any man believe a Mormon, who has a plurality of wives, would enforce it against his neighbor similarly cir-cumstanced? The great cause of our troubles is that the Mormons have been intrusted with the execution of the laws, which they have constantly disregarded. As a remedy for the evil, he proposed to divide Utah between Pike's Peak and Nevada.
 Mr. CLARKE, of Missouri, (Dem.,) said, in his opin-ion, that is the best possible way to dispose of the question. The Mormons can thus be made subser-vient to moral virtue and local authority. His infor-mation was that Pike's Peak has now a population of twenty thousand, and will soon receive an acces-sion of at least fifty thousand. 
Mr. PARROTT, of Kansas, (Rep.,) said Pike's Peak is legally a part of Kansas. At one time the popula-tion was as high as fifty thousand, and at no time has it been less, than ten thousand. His correspond-ence and examination satisfied him that the number will be largely augmented this Summer, but he did not wish Kansas to be curtailed of her fair propor-tions till she is admitted into the Union. 
Mr. SMITH, of Virginia, (Dem.,) did not believe Jeffersonia has five thousand inhabitants. 
Mr. MCCLERNAND responded that his friend was sceptical on many subjects, and urged his plan for destroying polygamy by dividing the Territory be-tween Pike's Peak and Nevada, and bringing the Mormons under the influence of a moral class of people.
 Mr. LAMAR, of Mississippi, (Dem.,) had no doubt as to the power of Congress to suppress polygamy and felony of all kinds in the Territories. It had been asked if polygamy be suppressed, may not the Re-publicans seize upon the principle and suppress Slavery. But the cry of Humanity, Order, Labor and Squatter Sovereignty are all pretexts made to play their subtle parts in the great drama against the South. There was no way to meet the question before them but by looking it in the face and considering it on its merits. He never heard of a retreating army inspir-ing terror or respect in a pursuing foe. The South must look to herself for her own protection. He maintained, in opposition to Messrs. MCCLERNAND and ETHERIDGE, that there is nothing in the practice and history of legislation over the national territory which forbids the exercise of the power in question. The right of Congress to legislate over the territories, to revise their legislation, to reverse it, to amend the organic law, to repeal their acts and punish offences with the territories, has been asserted from the foun-dation of the Government to the present day. The best way to get rid of this question was to authorize 1he President to buy out the Mormon possessions. 
Mr. NOEL, of Missouri, (Dem.,) repudiated entirely the idea that there is an analogy between the crime of polygamy and the institution of Slavery as the lat-ter exists at the South. He was opposed to the bill, for the reason that Congress ought not to interfere in the manner proposed while the organic act ex-ists, and by which the power to make local laws is delegated to the Legislative Assembly. We have already spent twenty millions to preserve peace in Utah. If this bill pass we had better make the ap-propriation fifty millions to increase our army, for the troubles will break out afresh. There was no necessity for passing a direct law, which would be impracticable. Let the power of the people of Utah to legislate be withdrawn and transferred to some other body, which will not exercise it so as to shock the moral sense. 
Mr. OLIN, of New-York, (Rep.,) addressed the House in favor of the bill, and against the various amendments offered to it. He showed that Congress has full power to pass the law in question; that even the Dred Scott case recognized and admitted the pow-er of Congress to govern the Territories, with a cer-tain limitation imposed by the Constitution: that among those limitations was found no restriction on the power of Congress to prohibit this practice of po-lygamy. Finally he entered his protest against the doctrine of squatter or popular sovereignty; that it seemed to him Providence had permitted this modern Sodom to grow up in our midst as a standing rebuke against the madness and folly of abdicating the pow-er of Congress over the Territories. 
During a colloquy between Mr. FARNSWORTH, of Illinois, (Rep.,) and Mr. CLARK, of Missouri, the for-mer said JOHN WESLEY spoke of Slavery as the sum total of all villainies.
Mr. JENKINS, of Virginia, (Dem,,) inquired—Do you say so ? 
Mr. FARNSWORTH—I said WESLEY said so. 
Mr. JENKINS—Do you say so? 
Mr. FARNEWORTH—I am very much of that opinion. 
Mr. JENKINS—Then you declare a lie. 
Mr. FARNSWORTH—I am not in the habit of descend-ing into cesspools to throw dirt with blackguards. [Sensation.] 
Mr. JENKINS (in his seat) was understood to say, "I can't receive that as an insult." 
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM, of Ohio, (Dem.,) remarked if the bill had proposed simply to annul certain laws of Utah establishing polygamy, he would vote for it without hesitation; but it went far beyond that, and proposed to create and punish an offence in every or-ganised Territory in the United States. It was the policy of the Federal Government from the beginning to delegate to the organized Territories leglalation upon all rightful subjects of legislation, criminal as well as civil, reserving till 1854 the right of revising and disapproving of such legislation. Slavery had, indeed, been for many years an exception, but in 1850 the doctrine of non-intervention as to that subject also had been as distinctly avowed as the principle of the adjustment measures of that year. He read an ex-tract from CLAY'S report in 1850, asserting this doc-trine. It had been distinctly embodied in all its ex-tent in the Kansas-Nebraka bill, extending to all the rightful subjects of legislation, and leaving it to the inhabitants to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. This was now the settled policy of the country and of the Democratic Party. Slavery indeed stood upon a dif-ferent ground. Slavery was not merely a domestic in-stitution, but slaves were property, and, as such, entitled to all the sanctions of property. But he warned gentlemen that there were millions who did not understand this, or who would not, and that the next step would be, punishment as a penal offence of that other "relic of barbarism," Slavery. It was not because he denied the power of Congress to pass it, but because it was a departure from the settled policy of the Government, of leaving to the Terri-tories to legislate for themselves on matters of local policy, that he would vote against the bill. 
Mr. THAYER, of Massachusetts, (Rep.)—It has be-come apparent in the progress of this debate that there is" at least one question upon which Represen-tatives from all parts of the country may agree. Ev-ery member from every section of the Union is ready to denounce the odious crime of polygamy. It is en-couraging, it is refreshing to know that there is at least one subject upon which there is no sectional-ism. Upon this subject I have not heard the Repre-sentatives from North Carolina boast that their people were better than those of Massachusetts; nor have I heard the Representatives from the State of New- York boast that their people were better than those of Mississippi. There is really now one practical ques-tion before us for our consideration, and, Sir, in my remarks upon it I shall not treat it as an abstraction, as a figure of speech, or as a point of law. Polygamy is an existing fact, and as an existing fact I agree with members from every part of this country in de-nouncing it, and I will so act, Sir, as to insure its most speedy extermination. Nor, Sir, is it a fact which began to-day, or yesterday, or last week. I should have supposed from the zeal which has been manifested here that it was never heard of until the beginning of this session of Congress. But, Sir, it was some thirteen years ago when BRIGHAM YOUNG, a shrewd and unscrupulous impostor, led his Mormon followers from Illinois, or from Missouri, across what was then the Great American Desert, to the basin of the Great Salt Lake. Poor, deluded, fanatical wo-men, having little religion, or no religion at all, saw charms in the religion of JOE SMITH, and embraced the faith of the Mormons. From time to time there has been accessions to their numbers. From year to year they have gathered from Wales, from Scotland, from Eng-land, from Germany, and from the States of this Union, and there they have gathered, until I think they obtained their highest number some two years since: and now they are in their decline. During these thirteen years we have had a Whig Administra-tion, a Democratic Administration, and for one Congress the Republican Party had the organization of this House; and, Sir, there never has been an act passed against this crime to make it a penal offence by statutes. Though it was before the eyes of the country, and before Congress, still no party, until this day, has taken the responsibility of proposing that it should be abolished by penal statutes, and by force of arms. But now, Sir, there seems, as I said before, to be a feeling not alone in this community, but in this House, which could be accounted for only on the supposition that polygamy was never heard of until to-day. There is a moral spasm, or paralysis, a sort of panic, which impels men to vote, and to vote now, and to vote against polygamy at all hazards. 
Mr. REAGAN, of Texas, (Dem.)—I desire to say that I introduced a resolution, in the last Congress, re-ferring this subject to a Committee. 
Mr. THAYER—My assertion was, that no act had been passed against it. And now, Sir, there is a most intense zeal manifested that something should be, not done, but voted, to exterminate polygamy in Utah; and this, Sir, would seem to satisfy some consciences. Though this very act will not peril the existence of that infamous institution, the act with them is enough. I will not call them stupid, or sluggish, but they are satisfied with voting against polygamy. If the ability of these gentlemen to execute were equal to their zeal to enact, we might almost say that omnipotence would be one of their weaknesses. But, Sir, it is not proposed to execute. There is no party in this country to- day, nor has there been in the last thirteen years, who would dare to vote bayonets and revolvers to stab or shoot polygamy, or BRIGHAM YOUNG and his followers. And, Sir, I would charge that the claim made now should not be sustained by this House. What is claimed? That the Congress of the United States should make an expression of opinion so that the world may know that the United States are opposed to polygamy. How much better should we stand before the nations of the earth, when we have shown what they might have known to-day, whether we are really opposed to polygamy or not? Shall we be doing any tiling to that end by putting a solemn vote upon the journals of this House? Any such expression of sentiment is super-flous. There is no State of this Union but what has already made polygamy a penal offence, and what is the combined expression of the representatives of the States more than the individual expression of the States themselves, acting in their individual capacity? Do we by combined action do anything more than they have done? Certainly not. The world understands now well enough that this country is opposed to polygamy, and it never will understand it any better by a vote, the whole effect of which will be to pro-long that institution. Then, Sir, as an expression of sentiment, this bill is superfluous. But, Sir, it is more than that. It is claimed by some that this is a penal statute. Will it be enforced? I say no, and I tell you, should the bill pass, neither you nor I wiil ever live to see a party which dares to vote money to strengthen a President who would use it for putting in operation and enforcing such a penal statute as this bill proposes. Then, Sir, what does it amount to? I say as a penal statute it is powerless, I will not go into an argument here to show why it ought not to be enforced; to speak of the cruelty of the attempt to enforce it; against men who could never be brought to understand why it was enacted. I will not go into an argument about the expense,—the millions it will cost the Government to enforce it, giving the Mormons reason to charge per-secution against us, driving them to the mountains. We should inevitably prolong the existence of Mor-monism by this means. I pass by this. For nobody claims that it is the purpose of any party to vote money or means to enforce the penal statute. But, Sir, the honor and authority of the United States must be vindicated, it is said. The honor and au-thority of the United States vindicated, indeed, by a law which its very framers admit is, from its incep-tion, a dead letter! Nobody dares stand up here now, and say he would enforce that law. Then, Sir, I claim that it is a sham. Ab initio, that it is a false pretence. And, Sir, I will never vote for a sham, or a false pretence, by whatever men, or what-ever party, it is brought into this House. I do not deal in those things. Sir, especially upon practical questions like this now before us,  What I have said in relation to this bill is enough to govern my vote, and that vote shall be against it. I have shown that as an expression of moral sentiment of this country it is superfluous; that as a penal statute it is powerless; that as a vindication of the honor : and authority of this Government, it is worse than fu-tile, for it brings authority and honor into ridicule and contempt. Now, Sir, if these are the facts, and if that is the prospect before us on this bill becoming a law, let me now inquire whether there is any anything that can be proposed that is better. And here, Sir, I am happy to be able to say, I believe that the solution,—peaceful, quiet, easy, natural, practical solu-tion of this question is now within your reach, I am happy in the belief that the gold mines of Pike's Peak and the silver mines of Carson Valley do now furnish us with the solution of this vexed question of polygamy. I have therefore proposed an amend-ment to the pending bill, that this country of Utah, together with a part of Kansas and Nebraska, shall be constituted into two land districts, in such a way that the Mormon population shall be nearly equally divided between the two. Now, what are the facts about the population. I come now to arguments which shall address themselves directly to the ques-tion before the House. The Mormons, by the highest authority I can get, have to-day about 30,000 peo-ple. I have it from the officers of the United States Army, who have been in Utah during the last two years, and who assure me that not more than one-seventh of this population of Mormons are legal voters. What then are the facts in relation to the two proposed land districts? I have it from a delegate from Jefferson, and from other gentlemen, that there | are in Jefferson at least 40,000 men, not less than 20,000 of whom are voters. We have it also from the papers last received from California, that there are in Carson Valley at least 30,000 men, not less than 15,000 of whom are voters. And the prospect is that the population of Carson Valley is destined to an increase which has never been paralleled in this country, not even in California, At the next session then these two land districts will probably come here asking admission as sovereign States. Then, Sir, di-viding the Mormon population between these two land districts, either one of which has now five times the number of voters—each one of which is rapidly increasing, while the number of Mormon voters is diminishing—with this prospect, I say, is there any risk or any doubt but that Mormonism will be exter-minated by local law, provided we pass this amendment and constitute the two laud dis-tricts as proposed? No, Sir. Why is local law any better than the law of a non-resident power? I contend that the law of a non-resident power is only to be laughed at, and be despised anywhere. True authority, in my judgment—the only authority worth minding—is law made and enforced by the peo-ple where it is law. That local law is what Mor-monism and what polygamy or any other crime can-not evade. But this non-resident law, though it may do for capital for politicians and for pretences, never does do for practice. I have not, and I do not intend to spend my time now, in attempting to show this House to what inextricable complications this precedent would lead. There is no end to that. I say only if we pass this amendment, and subject these Mormons to the operation of local law, it will be suffi-cient for the extinction of polygamy. Sir, is it to be supposed that a hundred thousand miners at Pike's Peak, and| the same number of miners at Carson Valley, without any women at all, will allow a mo-nopoly of women at Salt Lake? [Laughter.] Sir, I do not believe that the men who go into the territory are the rude pioneers they are sometimes called—men of no education, refinement, and intelligence. I do not agree that they are runaways and outlaws. They have more vigor in them, more power of endurance, more persistence than those of the old States. They are above the average of the people of their States, as I have said in this Hall before. I assure you that there are men among them who are edu-cated. There are to-day in Carson's Valley, and at Pike's Peak, men who have read history ; some of them may have read Roman History. [Laughter.] And I feel perfectly secure that under this proposition Mormonism and polygamy and all things connected therewith, may be left to the control of these two land districts which I propose to establish. Now, Sir, is it safe to leave this matter to a representative re-publican free government made by the people them-selves in these two land districts? Every man acquainted with the history of the world knows that polygamy never has existed under a Democratic or Republican form of govern-ment. Every man who reads history would decide beforehand that it could not exist where there is equality of the sexes, under such a form of govern-ment. Wherever it has existed—in Turkey, in Ara-bia. under the chiefs of Central Africa, or among the aborigines of America, it has always been sustained by a military despotism, and could be sustained by nothing else. Then the argument is conclusive that in subjecting polygamy to the action of the democ-racy of these two land districts, we do most effectu-ally end it. But it may be inquired, Sir, why we do not organize the Territories of Jefferson and Nevada, instead of constituting these public land, districts? why we do not pass an organic act? I am going to give my own views on this sub-ject. The bill or amendment I have proposed does neither affirm nor deny the power of Congress to legislate for the Territories. But while I present that bill, I do deny it, and still hold my own views upon that subject. If the inquiry is made of me why I would not vote for a Territorial organization, I say because I am ready to desert the old policy of the Government of organizing Territories ; and I say I will never vote for the organization of another Terri-tory under this Government. Neither would I ac-quire another loot of land to be governed by the Con-gress of the United States, or sold by the authority of Congress. The purposes of this Government, as has been well said here, are few and simple. And it is no part of its purposes to exercise non-resident juris-diction, or traffic in real estate. Therefore I am for getting rid of this business which is alien to the purposes of this Government, as soon as I can possi-bly do it. And, therefore, I am opposed to taking the responsibility of organizing more Territories or re-viving that old policy which has led to all the section-al quarrels between the States. I tell you we cannot afford to spend the time of this Nation in quarreling about distant provinces which the Constitution does not know. Sir, I am so much of a Popular Sover-eignty man that I deny that Congress can by an or-ganic act bestow sovereignty upon the Territories. I would not go so far as even to pretend it. 
Mr. SMITH, of Virginia, (Dem.)—The gentleman says the Constitution does not know anything less than a State. What does he do with the Constitu-tional power of Congress to dispose of the public lands? 
Mr. THAYER—I should have said as a political com-munity. The Constitution speaks of territory as land, as property, but as a political community It knows nothing less than a State; and hereafter, as a member of this House, I would know nothing less than a State ; therefore, I am opposed to an act grant-ing permission to a Territory to make any laws it may please.
 Mr. SMITH—If Congress has no power over the Ter-ritories of the United States, except as property, then Congress has no power over the people of the Ter-ritories. 
Mr. THAYER— Exactly; and no more right to govern the people of the Territories. It may be that under the construction of the Constitution which has ob-tained, Congress would really be decided to have the same right that GEORGE III. had to govern these colonies. But I deny that Con-gress now has, or ever had, a right to govern American citizens in the Territories of the United States. To be explicit, if Congress has that right, where did it get it? Congress is the servant, and not the king, of the people. The people, in this country, Mr. Speaker, is king, and there is no other. Nobody else has sovereignty but the people; and if Congress can dispense sovereignty, Congress must certainly acquire it; for nobody believes that Con-gress creates sovereignty. If it has acquired it, where and when did it acquire it? Why, even the Church of Rome pretends to give reasons for its acts; and when it sells indul-gences, it says it only sells the superabundant merit of the Saints—so that men have their deficien-cies made up by buying the merits of men who fare better than they need to be. But where does the superabundant sovereignty of Congress come from, that it had all this sovereignty to dispense with? What a great reservoir it must be of sove-reignty, to dispense twenty sovereignties, when it never had any sovereignty itself except what it ac-quired from the people of the States. Now, Sir, all this thing is in a State. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CURRY) wondered the other day by what hocus-pocus and legerdemain the land of to-day becomes to-morrow sovereign-ty. It does not. Men are sovereignties, not land. If a place is totally blank to-day, and to-morrow becomes a sovereignty, I assure you it is be-cause some man has gone there; some citizen who is himself so much above property that he alone is of more consequence than all the public lands this Gov-ernment ever had or ever will have. He, Sir, is sovereign, and will you disrobe him of his sovereign-ty because he had crossed a line and gone into a Ter-ritory? By what right, what law, what authority can you do it? By just as good authority as your coachman might put on your hat and coat, seat you on the box, whip in hand, and take his seat inside your carriage. If possession of land confers sovereignty over those who till it, I would like to know if the same power will not hold as to the produce of the land? If Government sells land to me, and thereby acquires a right to govern me, is it any greater assumption for a man who sells me the produce of land to claim the same right over me? Would you concede the right of the man who sells corn to the people to govern them? This idea that the possession of land gives the right of the sovereignty is a part of the old feudal system, of which we yet have some relics everywhere in this country. When WILLIAM the Conqueror passed into Great Britain, he proclaimed that the fee of ail the lands was in himself, and parceled it out among his followers, and then declared that owning the land, all the men who lived upon it were slaves. And here, upon this old feudal system, we revive this ancient idea that the possession of land by Congress gives Congress power to govern it. Govern the individuals who buy the land have no sympathy with any such notions. I detest it, and shall detest it always, and shall use my influence against it. But while I advocate this principle, the amendment I proposed commits no man to those truths, for it neither affirms nor denies the power of Congress to legislate hereafter for these very land districts thereby constituted. Now I hope I have succeeded in showing that the bill proposed will not accomplish the purposes which it is professed it has in view. I hope I have succeeded in showing that we have a natural and effective method of ac-complishing those results. I might have spoken of the complications which this territorial policy has imposed upon the Government; that a Republic will never succeed in governing provinces; that when ever it has undertaken to do it, it has not only failed, but has been overthrown by that policy. To acquire and govern provinces is to cre-ate a necessity for an army and navy, and to make the President of the United States to all intents and purposes a King. Therefore I am for abolishing this policy, as soon as may be. You will remember that it was upon this very mission of gov-erning provinces that CAESAR had been in Gaul, when returning, he crossed the Rubicon and overthrew the liberties of Rome, and such has been the history of every Republican country that has attempted to ex-ercise non-resident jurisdiction, and get along with provincial dependencies, I am for simplifying this matter in respect to territories. We have lands to sell—let us provide for selling the lands; and, unless an exigency arises which people may deem sufficient to warrant action, I would say not one word further. Sell the land and let the people take care of them-selves. 
Mr. KEITT, of South Carolina, (Dem.,) opposed the bill. He asked, Does polygamy exist in Utah? What proof was there here of the fact? With a view to intelligent legislation, the evidence of it ought to be produced. 
Mr. NELSON, of Tennessee, (American,) sent up an extract from the law establishing the Church. It was read. 
Mr. KEITT did not see anything in that to satisfy him on the subject. 
Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, (Rep.,) said that the three judges first appointed made a statement estab-lishing the fact of polygamy there, and that BRIGHAM YOUNG enjoyed a plurality of wives. He recollected distinctly their remark that this monopoly of wives operated very hard against strangers and travelers. [Excessive laughter.] 
Mr. KEITT asked where polygamy was found in the extract read. 
Mr. MALLORY, of Tennessee, (American.) said, in proof of the fact, he would call on the delegate from Utah. 
Mr. KEITT objected to this, adding, promiscuous intercourse or concubinage may exist, but the bill does not apply to that. 
Mr. HILL, of Georgia, (Amer.,) rose to propound a question. 
Mr. KEITT asked him whether he believed polygamy to be Republican? 
Mr. HILL replied, saying he had asked a Senator, who said Abraham was a good Republican and Dem-ocrat. [Laughter.] 
Mr. KEITT—Do you believe polygamy is Repub-lican? 
Mr. HILL—It is Anti-Christian? 
Mr. KEITT—Then you make a distinction? 
Mr. HILL—I do. [Laughter.] 
Mr. KEITT made further remarks against the bill, but without concluding, gave way for a motion to ad-journ, which prevailed. Adjourned.