IMPORTANT FROM UTAH.
Gov. Harding's Message, Dec. 8, 1862.
Gentlemen of the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Utah:
Since the adjournment of the Eleventh Annual Session of this body, the office of Governor of this Territory has been conferred upon me according to law. On the 7th day of July last I arrived in this city, and assumed the duties of my office.
I had heard much of the industry and enterprise of the people of Utah, but I must admit that my most sanguine expectations were more than realized upon my arrival here.
A few years since this Territory was only known as a desert. I found it the home of a large and thriving population, who have accomplished wonders in the short period that it has been settled; and under the steady progress of labor, protected in its indefeasible rights, the whole area embraced in the organic act establishing this Territory must present a spectacle to the people of the United States as satis-factory to them as it is creditable to yourselves.
The present reason has been one of unusual abundance, not only here, but throughout the entire Union; and notwithstanding civil war has made desolate many of the fairest districts which have ever been the abode of a civilized people, yet He who has promised "seed time and harvest" and “the rain to fall upon the unjust as well as the just" has still remembered the whole American people with superabundant mercies. If the harmony of the world has been marred, it has not been through the withholding of His kindnesses from the nation.
It is not necessary for me to dwell upon the causes which have superinduced the unhappy troubles now existing in the States of the American Union. That African Slavery and the mutual antagonisms which grow out of that relation, lie at the foundation, I nave no doubt. I am aware that other reasons have been assigned, but such reasons are confined to very few in comparison to the many who will agree with me in my proposition. That it is the duty of every lover of human lib-erty and friend of Republican institutions on this continent to stand by the Government in its present trials is, to my mind, a proposition too clear for argument. Notwithstanding or-ganized treason is still making gigantic efforts to carry out its purpose of destroying the Union, yet I am happy in the be-lief that the rebellion has culminated; that it can never be as strong again as it has been for a few months past. The ex-tremest measures have been resorted to in the Rebel States to put the last man in the field, for the purpose of sustaining the Rebel flag; nevertheless that flag has been compelled to re-treat, step by step before the victorious legions, of the Union, and still there are millions of men to be culled into the field, if it shall hereafter be found that those millions are needed.
CONSERVATISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
The most conservative advocate of the Union, no matter what his opinions be heretofore may have been on the question of Slavery, cannot complain of the policy of the Administra-tion of President Lincoln in dealing with this question. While it was known to all men that four millions of chattel slaves were supplying their Rebel masters with means to prosecute their work of ruin to the Government, and for the overthrow of the Constitution, the joint labors of our com-mon ancestors, yet that same Government, through its civil ministers and military commanders, it must be confessed, hesitated long enough to strike the Rebel interests where its blows could be made to tell with most terrible effect.
OBJECTS OF THE WAR.
The present war has not been prosecuted by the Federal Government because of any hostility toward the institutions of the Southern States, but to preserve the Union of the great family of States. The question of Emancipation of no Union has been thrust upon the President. In meeting that ques-tion, he has shown a patriotic wisdom worthy the head of a great nation.
If the Union could have been preserved, and Slavery still suffered to remain intact, that institution would never have been disturbed by the American people, but would have been suffered to expend its malign influences in the impoverish-ment of the soil where i exists, until, finally, it must have perished by the inexorable law of retribution, which, like an avenging Nemesis, is ever following in the track of wrong. But no matter when or how the present difficulties may be settled. Slavery is doomed—it must perish from the very nature of things.
PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION.
On the 1st day of January, proximo, the time given by the President to the slave masters of the Rebel States will have expired. If madness shall still rule in their councils, and no returning sense of duty or patriotism shall have been awakened in their hearts, and they shall still refuse to return to that allegiance which is their plainest duty, then the Presi-dent, exercising that power which he holds as Commander-in-Chief, and which, as a war power, no man, whose opinions are entitled to the least respect, has ever denied, will, by Proclamation, declare the freedom of every slave in the States or districts of States where such Rebellion shall then exist.
This new order of things may for a time jostle the com-mercial interests of not only this country, out of the whole Civilized world; but order and harmony will soon be restored, and our system of government will still be preserved, with no disturbing element remaining, a beacon light to the nations, and a refuge to countless millions who will come after us.
ADMISSION OF THE STATE OF DESERET INTO THE UNION.
After the adjournment of the last session of this body, in accordance with a joint resolution emanating therefrom the people of this Territory proceeded to elect delegates to form a Constitution for the State of Deseret, and after such Con-stitution was formed and adopted, the people proceeded to slect a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and other officers among which was a Representative to Congress, and also two U. S. Senators were elected. One of the gentlemen elected as a U. S. Senator proceeded to Washington City, and caused to be laid before Congress the object of his mission. He was treated with that courtesy to which a gentleman on so grave a mission should ever be entitled. He was permitted to occupy a seat within the bar of the Senate Chamber, and was otherwise received with the kindest consideration.
In consequence of the lateness of the season, it could not be expected that more would have been done than was in the premises. The Constitution and other documents were re-ferred to the appropriate committee, where the matter now rests. That the question will be taken up at the approachig session of Congress, and acted on in that spirit of fairness that becomes a great and generous nation. I have no doubt.
I am sorry to say that since my sojourn among you I have heard no sentiments either publicly or privately expressed that would lead me to believe that much sympathy is felt by any considerable number of your people in favor of the Gov-ernment of the United States, now struggling for its very ex-istence “in the valley and the shadow” through which it has been called to pass. If I am mistaken in this opinion no one will rejoice more than myself in acknowledging my e ror. I would, in the name of my bleeding country, that you, as the representative of public sentiment here, would speedily pass such a resolution as will extort from me, if necessary, a pub-lic acknowledgement of my error, if error I have committed.
I have said this in no unkind spirit. I would much rather learn that the fault has been on my part then on yours.
I regret to say I have found in conversing with many gen-tlemen of social and political influence, that because the ques-tion of the admission of this Territory into the Union was temporarily postponed, distrust is entertained in regard to the friendly disposition of the Federal Government, and expres-sions have been used amounting to uniendoes at least, as to what the result might be in case the admission should be denied or postponed. Every such manifestation of spirit on the part of the objectors is, in my opinion, not only unbe-coming, but is based on an entire misconception of the rights of the applicant and the Representatives of the States com-posing the Union.
The Constitution of the United States provides in Art. 3 and Sec. 3, “That new States may be admitted by the Con-gress in this Union.” &c. The question properly arises how and where are they to be admitted? Not, surely, upon the demand of the people of the Territory seeking to be admitted but upon the consent the Congress. When that consent be-comes a right to be demanded depends on circumstances. It is doubtless the interest and policy of the Federal Govern-ment to admit the Territories belonging to it to the status and condition of States whenever there is a sufficient population to warrant it, and they apply to Congress with a Constitution republican in spirit and form. But still the Congress has not only the right, but it is one of their gravest duties, to see that this great boon is not conferred upon a people unprepared to enter into the great political family on a basis that is just to other members of the Union.
Among the first inquiries is that in relation to the popula-tion of the Territory knocking for admission. Is it such as to entitle a State to a member in the House of Representat-tives? If such is the case, and the Constitution which has been adopted in good faith, and the people are loyal to the Consti-tution and the laws, and desire the welfare of the Federal Government, then it becomes not only the duty of the Con-gress to admit such applicant, but the latter has a right moral-ly and politically to demand such admission.
But on the other hand, if it is not clearly shown that there is a sufficient population, that the Constituion is republican in form and spirit, that the same has been adopted in good faith, or that the people are not loyal to the Federal Govern-ment and to the laws, then the right to make such demand does not exist, nor should the application be entertained after these facts appear.
The admission of a new State into the Union is, or ought to be, attended with the gravest considerations. For instance, suppose that the population of the Territory is known to fall far short of the number that entitles the present members of the Union to a Representative in Congress, should it be thought hard or strange that objections should be made? Is it thought a hardship that the people of the State of New-York, comprising four minions, are not willing that their voice should be silenced in the Senate of the United States by sixty or eighty thousand people in one of the Territories.
I am aware that precedents may be cited in some few in-stances where those reasons have been overlooked, and disre-garded; but that fact does not effect the question under con-sideration. The reasons which controlled Congress at the time referred to were never good and sound ones, but were formed in the wishes and ambi ion of political parties anxious to control the vote in the Electoral College tor Chief Magis-trate. If the precedent was a bad one, the sooner it is changed the better for all parties concerned.
In connection with this subject I respectfully recommend the propriety of passing an act whereby a correct census may be taken of the population of the Territory.
If it shall be found that the population is sufficient to en-title it to one Representative in Congress on the present basis, I shall be most happy in aiding you to the extent of my humble abilities in forwarding any movements having for their end the admission of this Territory into the Union as a State.
POLYGAMY.
It would be disingenuous if I were not to advert to a ques-tion which although seemingly it has nothing to do with the premises is yet one of vast importance to you as a people, and which cannot be ignored. I mean that institution which is not only commended but encouraged by you, and which, to pay the least of it, is an anomaly throughout Ch istendom.
I mean polygamy, or, if you prefer the term, plurality of wives. In approaching this delicate subject, I desire to do so in no offensive manner or unkind spirit. Yet, the institution laded upon no written statute of your Territory, but upon custom alone, exists. It is a patent fact, and your own public teachers, by speech and pamphlet on many occasions have challenged its investigation at the bar of Christendom.
I will not on this occasion be drawn into a discussion either of its morality or its Bible authority. I will neither affirm nor deny any one of the main propositions on which it rests. That there is seeming authority for its practice in the Old Testament Scriptures, cannot be denied. But still there were many things authorized in the period of the world when they were written, which could not be tolerated now without over-turning the whole system of our civilization, based as it is on that newer and better revelation of the common Savior of us all. While it must be confessed that the practice of poly-gamy prevailed to a limited extent, yet it should be remem-bered that it was in that age of the world when the twilight of a semi-barbarism had not yielded to the effulgence of the coming day, and when the glory and fame of the kings of Israel consisted more in the beauty and multitude of their con-cubines than in the wisdom of their counselors.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was once the lex talionis of the great Jewish law-giver. So capital punish-ment was awarded for Sabbath-breaking; and there were many other statutes and customs which at this age of the world, if adopted, would carry us backward into the centu-ries of barbarism.
I lay it down as a sound proposition that no community can happily exist with an institution as important as that of mar-riage wanting in all those qualities that make it homogeneal with institutions and laws of neighboring civilized communi-ties having the same object. Anomalies in the moral world cannot long exist in a state of mere abeyance; they must, from the very nature of things, become aggressive, or they will soon disappear from the force of conflicting ideas.
This proposition is supported by the history of our race, and is so plain that it may be set down as an axiom. If we grant this to be true, we may sum up the conclusion of the argument as follows: "Either the laws and opinions of the communities by which you are surrounded must become sub-ordinate to your customs and opinions, or, on the other hand, yours must yield to theirs." The conflict is irrepressible.
But no matter whether this anomaly shall disappear or re-main among you; it is your duty, at least, to guard it against flagrant abuses. That plurality of wives is tolerated and be-lieved to be right may not appear so strange. But that a mother and her daughters are allowed to fulfill the duties of wives to the same husband, or that a man could be found in all Christendom who could be induced to take upon himself such a relationship, is perhaps no less a marvel in morals than in matters of taste.
The bare fact that such practices are tolerated among you is sufficient evidence that the human passions, whether ex-cited by religious fanaticism or otherwise, must be restrained and subjected to laws, to which all must yield obedience.
No community can long exist without absolute social anarchy unless so important an institution as that of marriage is regulated by law. It is the basis of our civilization, and in it the whole question of the descent and distribution of real and per-sonal estate is involved.
Much to my astonishment, I have not been able to find any law upon the statutes of this Territory regulating marriage. I earnestly recommend to your early consideration the passage of some law that will meet the exigencies of the people.
ACT OF CONGRESS AGAINST POLYGAMY.
I respectfully call your attention to an act of Congress, passed the 1st day of July, 1862, entitled “An Act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States, and in other places, and disapproving and an-nulling certain acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Terri-tory of Utah." (Chap. CXXVII. of the Statutes at Large of the last Session of Congress, page 501.) I am aware that there is a prevailing opinion here that said act is unconstitutional, and therefore it is recommended by those in high authority that no regard whatever should be paid to the same; and still more to be regretted, if I am rightly informed, in some in-stances it has been recommended that it be openly disregard-ed and defied, merely to defy the same.
I take this occasion to warn the people of this Territory against such dangerous and disloyal counsels. Whether such act is unconstitutional or not, is not necessary for me either to affirm or deny. The individual citizen, under no circum-stances whatever, has the right to defy any law or statute of the United States with impunity. In doing so, he takes upon himself the risk of the penalties of that statute, be they what they may, in case his judgment should be in error.
The Constitution has amply provided, how and where, all such questions of doubt are to be submitted and settled, viz: in the Courts constituted for that purpose. To forcibly resist the execution of that act would, to say the least, be a high misdemeanor, and if a whole community should become in-volved in such resistance, would call down upon it the conse-quences of insurrection and rebellion.
I hope and trust no rash counsels will prevail. If, unhap-pily, I am mistaken in this, I choose to shut my eyes to the consequences.
LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.
Among the most cherished and sacred rights secured to the citizen of the United States is the right “to worship God ac-cording to the dictates of conscience." It would have been strange, indeed, if the founders of our Government had not thrown around the citizen this irrevocable guaranty, when it is remembered that so many of the framers of the Constitution must have been familiar with the acts of the British Parlia-ment against "Non-Conformists," and had witnessed the in-justice and hardship resulting therefrom.
They had seen men of the most exalted abilities and virtues excluded from places of public trust for no other or better reason than that they would not subscribe to all of the dog-mas of a church established by law. They had witnessed, at the same time, other men, of the most questionable integrity and morality, clothed in the robes of prelate and bishop, ex-acting, without stint or mercy, enormous revenues from an unwilling people, and expending the same in the pursuits of an unholy ambition, and in a luxury that better befitted the Court of some Eastern Satrap than the followers of "the meek and lowly Jesus," on whom they professed to believe.
In the light of their past experience, and inspired by the great primal truths of the Dec a ration "the indefeasible right of man to the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" still sounding in their ears, they founded a Gov-ernment on the basis of religious toleration, before unknown to mankind.
This could not well have been otherwise, from the very na-ture of things. It was the inevitable corollary that proceeded from the premises—and thus was it, that religion was left a matter between man and his Maker, and not between man and the Government.
But here arises a most important question, a question, per-haps, that has never yet been asked or fully answered in this country—how far does the right of conscience extend? Is there any limit to this right? and if so, where shall the line of demarkation be drawn, designating that which is not for-bidden from that which is? This is indeed a most important inquiry, and from the tendency of the times, must sooner or later be answered. I cannot and will not on this occasion pretend to answer the question, but will venture the sugges-tion that when it is answered, the same rules will be adopted as if the freedom of speech and of the Press were involved in the argument.
Let us refer to the provision of the Constitution. It is found in the first article of the Amendment—“Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or pro-hibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press."
Can we logically infer from the above provision that these rights are not correlative, or that they do not rest on the same principles? that one of these rights is of more importance to the citizen than another? and that his duty in their "free exercise" is not the same? I think not.
Let us briefly examine this proposition. Because "the freedom of speech and of the press" is guaranteed, can the citizen thereby be allowed to speak slanderously and falsely of his neighbor? Can he write and print a libel with impu-nity? He certainly cannot; and his folly would almost amount to idiotcy if he should appeal to the Constitution to shield him from the consequences of his acts. But the ques-tion may be asked, Why not? The answer is at hand. Sim-ply because he is not permitted to abuse these rights.
If upon a prosecution for slander or libel, the defendant should file his plea, setting up that provision of the Constitu-tion as matter of defense, the plea would not only be bad on demurrer, but the pleader would be looked upon as a very bad lawyer. Will any one inform me why the aame parity of reasoning should not apply as well in one case as the other? That if an act in violation of law, and repugnant to the civil-ization in the midst of which that act has been committed, should be followed by a prosecution, could it be justified un-der the guaranty of the Constitution securing the "free ex-ercise of religion" more than in the cases above cited? I shall pause for an answer.
There can be no limits beyond which the mind cannot dwell, and our thoughts soar in their aspirations after truth, We may think, what we will, believe what we will, and speak what we will on all subjects of specu ative theology. We may believe with equal impunity the Talmud of the Jew, the Bible of the Christian, the Book of Mormon, the Koran or the Veda of the Brahmin—we cannot elevate, other than by moral forces, the human soul from the low plane of ignorance and barbarism, whether it worships for its god the Lama of the Tartar, or the Beetle of the Egyptians. But when religious opinions assume new manifestations and pass from the con-dition of mere sentiment into overt acts, no matter whether they be acts of faith or not, they must not outrage the opin-ions of the civilized world; but, on the other hand, must con-form to those usages established by law, and which are be-lieved to underlie our civilization.
But, the question returns, Is there any limit to "the free exercise of religion?" If there is not, then in the midst of the nineteenth century, human victims may be sacrificed as an atonement for sin, and widows be burned alive on the funeral pile."
Is there one here who believes that such shocking barbar-isms could be practiced in the name of religion, and in "the free exercise thereof," in any State or Territory under the Constitution of the United States? If not, then there must be a limit to this right under consideration, and it only remains for the proper tribunal, at the proper time, to fix the bounda-ries, as each case shall arise involving that question.
POWERS VESTED IN THE GOVERNOR BY THE OR-GANIC ACT.
The act of Congress organizing the Territory of Utah, and providing a Government therein, defined wi h sufficient cer-tainty the duties of each department in said Government. These several departments were made to consist of the Ex-ecutive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Among the duties imposed on the Governor is that of nominating certain officers, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Coun-cil. The first question that arises under this head is, what of-ficers are to be nominated by the Governor? The seventh section of said act is in the following words: "And be it fur-ther enacted that all township, district and county officers not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, us the case may be, in such manner as shall be pro-vided for, by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah." The Governor shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council (not Assembly), appoint all officers, not herein otherwise pro-vided for, &c.
Township, district, and county officers are to be appointed, or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as the Gov-ernor and Legislative Assembly may direct. It is clear to my mind that the Organic Act contemplates two classes of offices, viz., township, district and county; and another class not in-cluded in the former, which embraces all officers strictly Ter-ritorial, such as Attorney-General for the Territory, Marshal, Auditor, Treasurer,&c. I cannot arrive at any other conclusion, in the examination of that act, than that the officers not includ-ed in the first class must be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and cannot be elected, as in the former instance, by joint ballot of the Legislative Assembly. If I am right in this, then it fol-lows that all such officers of the latter class who have been elected by the Legislative Assembly have held such offices contrary to law, and must have been removed upon the prose-cution of a writ of Quo Warranto. It follows, further, that if such officers acted without authority of law, their acts are void and not binding upon the citizens. This becomes a ques-tion of much importance when we consider the hardihips and inconveniences which may hereafter grow out of the same. I respectfully submit for your consideration, whether it would not be safer either to pass some law legalizing the acts of such persons while in the supposed discharge of their duties, or it maybe that it would require an act of Congress legalizing such assumed official acts.
Before dismissing this part of my subject I feel it my duty to suggest to you whether a very grave question may not hereafter arise as to the authority of the Legislative Assembly to elect, by joint ballot, any of the officers denominated as “Township, District, and County Officers." I have been unofficially advised that the word "Election," as used in the organic act, might be held to refer to the people, and not to the Legislative Assembly. If such a question should hereafter arise, and such a possible view should be taken in deciding this question, it would involve the most serious consequences. I will express no opinion on the subject. I only raise the question for your consideration.
REVISION AND CODIFICATION OF THE STATUTES.
I respectfully call your attention to the necessity of a thor-ough revision and codification of the statutes of this Territo-ry. I am aware that something was attempted at year last session in that direction, but it seems to me that the Commit-tee, which had that duty under their charge, stopped far short of what was required at their hands. It is the duty of the law-makers to leave the statutes by which the people are to be governed so plain in their several requirements, that the stranger cannot be misled therein. It is extremely difficult to ascertain what precise statues are in force on many sub-jects in this Territory. Beside this, there are many provisions in the statutes manifestly unjust, and while they remain must be considered anomalies. I will not consume time in any argumentation on this subject, believing that it will be only necessary to call your attention to the facts as they exist. Among the most objectionable of these provisions may be found the following in the Revised Statutes of 1355, and which are still in force:
Chapter 2, relating to Justices of the Peace, sec. 8, 15, 19.
Chap. 3, relating to procedure in civil cases, sec. 28.
Chap. 6, relating to Attorneys-at-Law. This whole chapter should be repealed.
Chap. 12, relating to estates of decedents, sec. 14, 24, 25, 26. The great objection to these sections is that no limit what-ever is fixed to the value of the estate, thereby cutting off claims which ought to be paid when there is enough to do so, and still the family of the deceased would be left in com-fortable circumstances.
Chap. 18, in relation to divorces; there should be a specified time when such notice of the pendency of the application should be given to the defendant Sec. 8, in the same chap-ter, gives the Probate Judge powers too plenary. In a ques-tion of so much importance, the party should have the benefit of a trial by Jury.
Chap. 32 should be stricken from the statute. No such crime as treason against a Territory is known to the law. I call your attention especially to sections 112 and 113, under the title of "Justifiable killing and the prevention of public offenses." These provisions are too palpably unjust to stand a day on your statutes. It would be an easy matter for an innocent man to be murdered, and yet under these provisions his murderer could escape under the plea that the circum-stances were such as to excite his fears that certain acts either would be done, or had been, for which he claimed the im-munity of the statute. If your laws against the offenses therein named are not sufficiently penal, make them so, but to authoriz by a public statute the killing of a man on mere suspicion that he has committed or will commit certain acts, which are less than capital, upon his conviction, after a fair trial, seems to me most cruel and unjust.
In China, it is said that a high Mandarin of the "Blue But-ton" may kill with impunity a person suspected of stealing rice, and out open his stomach to find the evidence of his guilt. In no other instance have I been able to find any statute or custom analogous to the one under consideration. No community can adopt the principles contained in that statute without soon becoming (dropping the figure) as a “whitened sepulcher, filled with dead men's bones."
VOTING BY BALLOT.
I respectfully call your attention to Chapter 47, Sec. 5, in relation to voting at elections by ballot. Said section is as follows: "Each elector shall provide himself with a vote continuing the names of the persons he wishes elected, and the offices he would have them to till, and present it, neatly folded, to the Judge of the Election, who shall number it and deposit it in the ballot box. The clerk shall then write down the name of the elector, and opposite the number of his vote." Why it should be required that the elector should provide himself a vote, and present it neatly folded perhaps can be satisfactorily explained, but I confess that the object of voting by ballot is completely defeated by the above provision. Why not vote viva voce at once? The great object to be attained in voting at our popular elections is the absolute freedom of the elector in depositing his vote. Hence it is that in most, if not all the States, the right to vote by secret ballot is se-cured to the elector by stringent laws. This reason is obvi-ous: a thousand circumstances might so completely surround the elector that he would be compelled oftentimes to vote against the convictions of his judgment, and yet could not, if interested and powerful parties were permitted to exercise their control over him, in the discharge of one of his most sacred duties.
In connection with this subject I take pleasure in adopting the language of my worthy predecessor. Gov. Cummings, as being eminently fit and proper: "Many of the laws now on the statute-book were passed under a condition of things which will soon cease to exist. You cannot reasonably an-ticipate a continuance of the partial isolation which has char-acterized your early history in this region. It must be borne, in mind that you are situated upon the great highway be-tween the oceans, which is already traversed by expresses and telegraphs, and is soon to witness the establishment of a railroad transporting through your valleys the commodities of the world. It would be well that you make timely prepara-tion for changes that are fast approaching you, and are ulti-mately inevitable. New relations between yourselves, and between yourselves and the outer world, must occur. I would therefore urge upon you that you appoint a Committee to prepare a code of laws suitable to the present and future re-quirements of this community. The Judges are constituted your legal advisers in these matters. To them I refer you."
If this was true in 1860, how much more is it true to-day? This constantly increasing travel over the great Overland Mail route, and thousands of emigrants passing yearly through your Territory, many of whom become permanent citizens, ad-monish all of us that your days of isolation from the outside world have forever passed. Even if it were desirable, you cannot longer remain isolated and walled in by these natural ramparts around you. Every canon susceptible of improve-ment will be converted into some thoroughfare where the never-ceasing tide of our population will be poured along. Every nook and valley which for ages have been only trod-den by wild beasts or savage men—will become the home of some enterprising citizen, whose right it will be to claim the protection of just and wholesome laws.
FINANCIAL.
I herewith annex the Auditor's and Treasurer's Reports for the year 1862. They have been made out with so much clear-ness in their details that it is only necessary for me to refer them to you, accompanying the former with a few brief sug-gestions. By reference to appended statement A, in the Au-ditor's Report, it will be seen that the aggregate amount of taxable property assessed within the Territory for the year 1862 is $4,779 518, and the same statement shows a tax due the Territorial Treasury for the current year, estimated at one per cent, of $47,795 18, from which will have to be deducted, for cost of assessing, collecting, and remittances by County Courts, at least 12 per cent, leaving a probable net revenue of $42,059 76.
The whole Territorial liability, including the direct tax assessed by the United States, and assumed by the Territorial Legislature, January 17, 1862, amounts to the aggregate sum of $40,199 31. The assets out of which this sum is to be paid, by reference to the same report, amount to the sum of $50,612 10—leaving a balance still in the treasury on the 1st day of November, 1862, of $10,412 79. The above result can-not fail in being satisfactory to you. The report of the Treasurer is so clear and concise that it is not necessary for me to add one word more than what is contained in the report itself. Before dismissing this subject, I call your attention especially to the Auditor's report for the year 1861, in regard to the aggregate value of taxable property within this Territory for that year.
By examining the same you will find that such aggregate amount was $5,032,184, thereby showing the strange fact, that since that assessment was made there has been a falling off in the value of taxable property within this Territory in a single year of $252,666, and what is still more remarkable, this apparent loss in Great Salt Lake County alone has been $140,280. While on the other hand, in the County of Davis, there has been an apparent gain of $410,514. I am advised that the cutting off a portion of this Territory and adding the same to that of Nevada cannot account for this phenomenon.
If there is no mistake in these computations, it presents a most remarkable fact indeed. I shall not attempt to account for it here, but call your attention to the same, merely adding that in the absence of great local calamities which affect in their nature whole communities, I question whether such an instance can be found in the history of any people. But it remains for you to account for this phenomenon. This city is the heart and center of the county where so remarkable a de-ficiency has developed itself; and yet there certainly have been no natural causes for this condition of things. Not only have the people stood still in all their industrial pursuits, absolutely earning nothing over and above their current ex-penses that goes to swell the aggregate wealth—but there has been a positive loss, if we are to be governed by these data, in Great Salt Lake County alone, in one year, of $140,280, Can this be so? When we take into consideration that the present year has been one of universal prosperity, while the labors of the husbandman have been most bountifully paid, and on every hand in this thriving city unmistakable evi-dences of prosperity are apparent, this result can only be ac-counted for on one hypothesis, viz: in former years the valua-tion of property has been too high, or the present year it has been too low.
These fluctuations, to some extent, will always exist, from factitious causes alone, in spite of the greatest precaution, but it is the duty of the Legislature to guard not only the peo-ple but the treasury against abuses of the kind—if any exist.
There can be no wrong to the people in the collection of an ad valorem tax, providing the property has been fairly as-sessed and its value fairly determined. The revenue is the common fund of the people, and there should be no favoritism in the collection of the same. No matter whether the indi-vidual property-holder possesses ten, twenty, or one hundred thousand dollars worth, he should submit to the same rules in determining its value as if he was the owner only of one hundred or ten hundred dollars worth.
MISCELLANEOUS.
On the 29th of October last the Secretary of the Interior ad-dressed me a letter, informing me that he had designated me to receive for the Territorial Library here two sets of the Documents of the second session of the XXXVIth Congress; that by the act approved the 14th March, 1862, making appro-priations for the legislative, executive and judicial expenses for the Government for the year ending June 30, 1862, there is the following provision: "Provided that the said journals and documents shall be sent to such libraries and public in-stitutions only as shall signify a willingness to pay the costs of transportation of the same." Upon inquiry, I found that no funds were at my disposal with which to pay for such transportation, and I notified the department accordingly.
There will doubtless be other important documents to be distributed on the same terms hereafter—and I recommend that you provide the necessary means whereby you can avail the people of this territory of the benefits of these donations. I am advised that the Penitentiary of this Territory is in a dilapidated condition, and that some repairs are absolutely necessary in order to make the same a safe or proper recepta-cle for public offenders I recommend that you memorialize Congress upon that subject.
I have not been able to find any laws upon your statutes in-augurating a common school system, or that any money has been appropriated with a view to that end, although you have appropriated money to other objects of much less importance—for instance, in keeping up a great military establishment, at considerable expense to the people. As much as this con-dition of things, at one period of your history, may have been required, it seems to me that the time has passed when the Territorial funds should be used for that purpose, at the ex-pense of so important a measure as that which looks to the ed-ucation of the rising generation among you.
I need not dwell here upon the importance of common schools; your intelligence must supply any argumentation on my part.
The condition of the militia of this Territory is unknown to me, although the statute organizing the tarns makes it the du-ty of the Lieutenant-General commanding to report to the Governor, who is recognized as Commander in Chief, on or before the 1st day of December annually, yet no such report has been made to me, and therefore I am wholly uninformed on the subject. If I should hereafter deem it my duty, I may require that such a report be made.
There are many other topics to which perhaps I ought to re-fer, but I have no data from which to draw conclusions. If re-ports on any of these subjects shall hereafter be made to me, I will communicate them to you with such suggestions as I may deem proper.
INDIAN TROUBLES.
Complaints have been frequently made to me during the past Summer, and up to a recent period, by emigrants who have suffered great loss and violence from hostile Indian bands who infest some parts of this and adjacent Territories, while peaceably persuing their travel to such points of desti-nation as was their right to do; and from statements which I believe to be reliable, certain residents of this Territory have been known openly to barter and trade with the Indians for clothing and other articles which they at the time must have known were the spoils and plunder from murdered citizens. These practices have in my opinion a direct tendency to en-courage these outrage against humanity.
I respectfully submit for your consideration whether any legislation is demanded at your hands to prevent these out-rages in future. The presence of a military command here will doubtless have a tendency to prevent many of these hor-rors in future. I am glad that I am enabled to inform you that the Federal Government has made arrangements to hold treaties with some, if not all, of the tribes of Indians that have so long infested this and neighboring Territories, and it is to be hoped that this will be done at an early day, and the Indian title to the lands therein be speedily extinguished, and such disposition will be made of their former occupants as becomes a great and generous and just Government.
HOMESTEAD ACT.
On the 1st day of January, 1863, the Homestead act, passed on the 20th of May last, will go into effect. Thereby enabling any person who is of the age of twenty-one years, or who is the head of a family, or who has performed service in the army or navy of the United States, and who has not borne arms against the United States, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof, and has declared his intention to become a citizen of the same to enter on and take possession of one hundred and sixty acres of any of the public lands not other-wise appropriated, and by cultivating the same for the term of five years, and paying the sum of ten dollars, will upon the compliance with these conditions be entitled to a patent for the same—thus will it be in the power of any loyal citizen, to possess a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land secured from all liabilities for any debt which he may have contracted prior to the date of his patent for the same.
When it is remembered that this beneficent act was in-tended to secure a home of every loyal citizen on terms so easy and just, its consequences for good cannot be well over-estimated to the present and future generations. What patri-otic devotion does the recipient of this great boon not owe to the Government that thus shields himself and his family from the possibility of want; if he will make use of the means that God and nature have given him! What should be the char-acter of that loyalty due from the citizen to such a Govern-ment—a Government which enables him at one bound, al-though mined in his fortunes, to spring from indigence and penury to comparative ease and independence!
The Indian title to the lands within our vast Territories will soon be extinguished, and they will be open to settle-ment on the terms above prescribed. What inducements are there which are not held out to those just beginning life, and who may reasonably hope to witness thriving cities springing up where the wild Indian now lights his camp-fires and pitches his rude lodge. When it is also remembered that every rood of land in this Territory will be opened to the cit-izens upon no harder terms than that they will occupy and cultivate it, and remain loyal to our common Government, who should doubt for a moment that such a golden opportu-nity shall be offered in vain, or that one link shall be stricken from the chain of sympathy that should ever bind us alike in interest, in body, and in soul, to that same benign and just Government?
CONCLUSION.
I have felt it my duty to urge upon your earnest considera-tion the suggestions and measures herein recommended; at the same time I have felt that I would be wanting in proper respect to you were I to accompany each of these recom-mendations with an assignment of all the various reasons which might be urged in their favor.
I am accountable to the Government of our common country for these recommendations. You, too, are accountable to the same tribunal, and to your immediate constituents, for the disposition that you make of them. It is your province and duty to consider and discuss them, and either adopt or reject them as your wisdom shall determine.
I desire to assure you, gentleman, that nothing in my power shall be wanting to demonstrate my honest regard for the in-terest and welfare of the people of this Territory; they de-serve much at the hands or the Federal Government for their persevering industry, and so far as my humble efforts may contribute to that end they shall never be wanting. No mat-ter what differences of opinion may exist between us on many subjects, I will endeavor to convince you of my sincer-ity by the uprightness of my conduct, and shall always be sat-isfied with the discharge of my efficial duties, when I know they stand approved by the general voice of the people. May each one of you be clothed with wisdom from on high in the discharge of the important duties which devolve upon you, and may you deliberations be such as not only to secure the lasting peace, happiness and prosperity of the people of this Territory but will also redound to the welfare and glory of our common country. STEPHEN S. HARDING.
Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, Dec. 8, 1862.
