Daily globe

              BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN UTAH.
Mr. RICHARDSON. The Committee on Territories have directed me to report a joint res- olution in reference to the settlement of the ex- penses of a board of commissioners in Utah. 1 send it to the Clerk that it may ba read.
The joint resolution was then read a first and second time by its title, as follows:
A joint resolution authorizing the accounting officers of the Treasury to adjust the expenses of a board of commissioners appointed by the Ter- ritorial Assembly of Utah to prepare a code of laws.
Mr. RICHARDSON. I move that the resolu- tion be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and be printed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. LANE, of Oregon. I now move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
The question was put; and the motion was agreed to.
SURVEYOR GENERAL OF UTAH. The CHAIRMAN. The next bill on the Cal- endar for consideration is House bill No. 317, entitled " A bill to establish the office of surveyor general of Utah, to grant donations to actual set- tlers therein, and for other purposes."
Mr. HENN. I move that the committee do now rise, that general debate may be closed in committee on this bill. [ Cries of « No!"]
Mr. KERR. Is the motion debatable i The CHAIRMAN. It is not. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Has the bill been yet under consideration?
The CHAIRMAN. The bill has not yetbeen read through.
Mr. JONES. The rule says that the bill shall have its first consideration in committee; and, unless it be considered, it will not be in order to close debate upon it.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill has been read by its title. Unless objected to, the bill will be con- sidered as having been read through the first time for information.
Mr. DISNEY. That was the motion which I was about to submit. There was no objection.
The question was then taken on the motion that the committee do now rise; und it was disagreed to.
The first section of the bill was read for amend- ment by the Clerk, as follows:
Be it enacted, Sfc., That the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint a surveyor general for Utah, whose power and authority, duties, compensation, and allowances for clerk hire, office rent, fuel, & c., shall be the same as now provided by law for the surveyor general of California; and he shall locate his office, from time to time, at such places as may be directed by the President of the United States.
Mr. DISNEY. To make the bill correspond with the one passed on the same subject for New Mexico, I move to strike out all of the section after the word " Utah," and in lieu thereof to insert the following:
Whose annual salary shall be $ 3,000, and whose power, authority, and duties shall be the same as those pro- vided by law for the surveyor general of Oregon ; and he shall have proper allowances for clerk hire, office rent, and fuel, not exceeding what now is or hereafter may be al- lowed by law to the said surveyor general of Oregon ; and he shall locate his office, from time to lime, at such places as may be directed by the President of the United States,
Mr. HAYEN. I would inquire of the gentle- man from Ohio wheth er this provision is precisely like that in the New Mexico bill ? Mr. DISNEY. Verbatim. The question was then taken on Mr. DISNEY'S amendment; and it was agreed to.
The Clerk then reported the second section. Mr. DISNEY. In order to make this section correspond with the amendments made to the New Mexico bill, I move to strike out from the first to the seventeenth lines, as follows:
" That to every white male American citizen of the United States, or to every white male inhabitant who has declared his intention to become such, over the age of twenty- one years, who removed to and was residing in said Territory prior to the 1st day of January, 1853, there shall be, and hereby is, donated one half section, or three hundred and twenty acres of land, if single, but if married, one section, or sis hundred and forty acres ; and to each white male American citizen, who. shall have removed, or shall remove to, and settle in said Territory, between the 1st day of January, 1853, and the 1st day of January, 1858, there shall, in like manner, be donated one quarter section, or one hundred and sixty acres, if a single man, or if mar- ried, one half- section, or three hundred and twenty acres, on condition ofactual settlement and cultivation for not less than tour years,"
and to insert in lieu thereof the following:
That to every white male citizen of the United States, or to every white male, over twenty- one years of age, who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who 1 » now a resident of said Territory, or who prior to the first day of January, 185b, shall remove to and settle in said Territory, and shall continue to reside therein, be donated a quarter section or a hundred and sixty acres, on condi- tion of actual settlement and cultivation for not less than four years.
Mr. DISNEY. I desire to state, for the in- formation of the committee, that it is the identical amendment adopted in the New Mexico bill re- ported by the committee to the House on yester- day.
The question was then taken on the amend- ment; and it was agreed to.
The third section was then read, as follows: SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That on proofof settle- ment and cultivation, as required by this act, to the satis- faction of the surveyor general, or other officer designated by law for that purpose, subject to the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, a certificate shall be issued to the party entitled, on presentation of which, if approved by the Secretary of the Interior, a patent shall issue thereon : Provided, however. That on the death of any such settler, before the completion of the four years'occupancy and cul- tivation required by this act, the right shall descend to his heirs- at law, who shall be entitled to a certificate and patent as aforesaid on proof, as before provided, of continued oc- cupancy and cultivation by such settler to the time of his death: Provided, however, That when lands are claimed under any of the provisions of this act by persons who are not citizens of the United States, patents shall not issue therefor until they become citizens: And provided further, That the benefits of this act shall not extend to any person who shall now, or at any Ume hereafter, be the husband of more than ona wife.
Mr, WALSH. I have heard with a great deal of attention the reply of my friend from Wash- ington, [ Mr. LANCASTER,] in regard to all the privations which he and his associates have en- dured in that Territory. I can well appreciate how great a calamity it may be for a number of full- blooded young men to be washing their own shirts, and going without wives and the society of ladies. [ Laughter.]
But, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is another Territory where there is an abundance of ladies, and where they are not compelled to come into the Atlantic States to obtain wives. [ Laughter.] There must be injustice done to the women, if there are a superabundance of them, as every woman, I believe, is entitled to one husband.
But, sir, in relation to the second provision. We are told that the Government gives these six hundred and forty acres as an inducement to emi- grants to go there and settle the lands. The Gov- ernment has fulfilled its part of the contract, and if these gentlemen who have reclaimed the land which they have received, in God's name, if they find that they have too much to hold profitably, let them give away the surplus to the men who come after them, and who are there, ready and willing to endure the same privations that they have encountered. 1 repeat, sir, the Government has fulfilled its part of the contract; and if six hun- dred and forty acres is entirely too much land for one man to cultivate, let him, instead of driving his fellow- man, who comes after him, to an unknown wilderness, exhibit his gratitude for the gift which he originally received from the Government, by dividing with those who come after him. There is no law to prevent him giving away his land in this way, and I see no reason to prohibit him from doing so.
Mr. LANCASTER. I would say, for the information of the committee, that the persons making application for a patent of land shall swear that they hold their lands in their own right, and not for others, and that they have not disposed of, or put away any part or parcel of it.
Mr. WALSH. Yes, that they have not parted with it for a consideration; but I suppose a man has a right to give away a portion of his land.
Mr. LETCHER took the floor.
Mr. LANE, of Oregon. If the gentleman from Virginia will allow me, I will move that the com- mittee do now rise.
Mr. LETCHER. No; i want to say a word or two first.
Mr. LANE. If my proposition suits the gen- tleman from Virginia, I will make the motion— but not otherwise— that the committee rise, with a view of closing the debate on this bill.
[ Cries of " No!" " No!" J
Mr. LETCHER. The proposition will not suit. I desire to say a word or two first.
Mr. LANE. Well; will five- minute speeches do?
Mr. LETCHER. Not unless* a man could have an opportunity to weld three or four to- gether.
Mr. LANE. Well, let us hear the gentleman.
Mr. LETCHER. Mr. Chairman, things are now tending very rapidly to the point to which I supposed, some time ago, they would ultimately get. I expected, before I had finished my term in Congress, to find men, who, if not making a direct proposition to the House, would at least present the idea as fair and proper, that Congress should not only give to settlers farms out of the public domain, but should supply them also with the means of working these farms and making them valuable.
But the gentleman from Washington Territory [ Mr. LANCASTER] has gone even beyond my ex- pectation, and has reached a point which I never expected to hear broached. He now insists upon it, that it is the duty of Congress to so legislate as that wives can be furnished to them in addi- tion to the grants of lands. [ Laughter.] Now, Mr. Chairman, I take it that every man, in any part of the country, who wants a wife, and who is worthy of a wife, will get one. [ Renewed laugh- ter.] And I think that the Government need not interfere in respect to this little domestic matter, which should very properly be left to the parties themselves.
Mr. RICHARDSON. You are for non- inter- vention.
Mr. LETCHER. Yes, sir. I am for non- intervention in all matters of that sort. 1 want neither the Government nor individuals to inter- fere in a matter of that kind.
Mr. RICHARDSON. I understand you.
Mr. LETCHER. Yes, sir, neither North nor South should interfere. It seems to me that the Government has been liberal to those persons who have gone to Oregon, as well as to those who have gone to all the other Territories which have been organized. It has given them an im- mense quantity of land; and so large and valuable has been the gift, that even now, upon this floor, we hear it said, and complained of, that they have more than they know what to do with. The Government established the terms and conditions upon which the land was granted to them, and that, too, very shortly after the Territory was organized. What are those terms and conditions, and to whom were the grants to be made? Here is a part of the fourth, and the entire fifth section of the act of 1850:
'•' SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That there shall be, and hereby is, granted to every white settler or occupant of the public lands, American half- breed Indians included, above the age of eighteen years, being a citizen of the United States, or having made a declaration according to law, of his intention to become a citizen, or who shall make such declaration on or before the 1st day of Decem- ber, 1851, now residing in said Territory, or who shall become a resident thereof on or before the 1st day of De- cember, 1850, and who shall have resided upon and culti- vated the same for four consecutive years, and shall other- wise conform to the provisions of this act, the quantity of one half section, or three hundred and twenty acres of land, if a single man, and if a married man, or if he shall become married within one year from the 1st day of December, 1850, the quantity of one section, or six hundred and forty acres, one half to himself and the other half to his wife, to be held by her in her own right ; and the surveyor general shall designate the part inuring to the husband and that to the wife, and enter the same on the records of his office; and in all cases where such married persons have complied with the provisions of this act, so as to entitle them to the grant as above provided, whether under the late provisional government of Oregon, or since, and either shall have died before patent issues, the survivor arid children or heirs of the deceased shall be entitled to the share or interest of the deceased in equal proportions, except where the deceased shall otherwise dispose of it by testament duly and properly executed according to the laws of Oregon.
" SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That to all white male citizens of the United States, or persons who shall have made a declaration of intention to become such, above the age of twenty- one years, emigrating to and settling in said Territory between the 1st day of December, 1850, and the 1st day of December, 1853; and to all white male American citizens, not hereinbefore provided for, becoming one and twenty years of age, in said Territory, and settling there between the times last aforesaid, who shall in other respects comply with the foregoing section and the provisions of this law, there shall be, and hereby is, granted the quantity of one quarter section, or one hundred and sixty acres of land, if a single man ; or if married, or if he shall become married within one year from the time of arriving in said Territory, or within one year after becoming twenty- one years of age as aforesaid, then the quantity of one half sec- tion, or three hundred and twenty acres, one half to the husband and the other half to the wife, in her own right, to be designated by the surveyor general as aforesaid: Provided always, That no person shall ever receive a patent for more than one donation of land in said Territory in his or her own right: Provided, That no mineral lands shall be located or granted under the provisions of this act."
Now, sir, it seems to me that the provisions made by the Government for granting lands to those who are within the limits of the Territory of Ore- gon are exceedingly liberal and generous. It not only gives land to every American citizen who is there, but to every half- breed Indian; and not only to those who are there, but to those who shall go there before a certain day, which is designated by the act— three hundred and twenty acres of land, if a single man, and if married, six hundred and forty acres.
This provision was not confined to those who were there at the time of the passage of the act. It went beyond that, and applied to those who came within twelve months afterwards. And it gave the same indulgence not only to married men, but to those who might hereafter marry within twelve months after a certain date therein specified.
Now, sir, there are some provisions attached to this law. They are as follows:
" Provided, That no alien shall be entitled to a patent to land, granted by this act, until he shall produce to the sur- veyor general of Oregon record evidence that his natural- ization as a citizen of the United States has been completed; but if any alien, having made his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, after the passage of this act, shall the before his naturalization shall be com- pleted, the possessory right, acquired by him under the provisions of this act shall descend to lii's heirs at law, or pass to his devisees, to whom, as the case may be, the patent shall issue : Provided further, That in all cases pro- vided for in this section, the donation shall embrace the land actually occupied and cultivated by the settler thereon: Provided further, That all future contracts by any person or persons entitled to the benefit of this act, for the sale of the land to which he or they may be entitled under this act before he or they have received a patent therefor, shall be void."
Now this last proviso is to be stricken out, and the result will be, that if the occupant has not been upon the land for three months, he is to be relieved from the restriction which requires him to settle and cultivate the same, and he is to be allowed to go into market and make a sale of his land.
The gentleman from Ohio [ Mr. DISNEY] says, what does the Government suffer by this ? What is lost to the United States? They have already given the land, and by striking out this proviso, you authorize them to sell a portion of it, in order that they may acquire the means of carrying on
their farming operations upon the rest of it, as the gentleman says.
Well now, sir, it strikes me that, under this state of things, this may occur, that the Government of the United States may, at least, give lands to others which will go into the hands of those who have already received them. For example: sup- pose one man has three hundred and twenty acres of land there now, and if a new comer arrives there, under the provisions of this section, he can sell to him one half of his claim, and the new comer himself can enter a claim for three hundred and twenty acres more, and in his turn may sell one half of his claim to the first, or they may agree to make an exchange of portions of the land which each holds.
Mr. LANE. Will the gentleman from Vir- ginia allow me to say that, as we have many bills relating to territorial business yet to dispose of, and as this provision is likely to consume the time of the committee, to avoid detaining the committee any longer upon the matter, I am willing, so far as Oregon is concerned, that the privilege of selling portions of claims shall be restricted, as the gentle- man from Indiana [ Mr. PARKER] proposes, to persons who have perfected their right to the lands; that is, to those who have lived upon their claims for four years. Does the gentleman from Virginia desire more than that?
Mr. LETCHER. If they have complied with the conditions of the law, they have the right to dispose of their lands as they please, and there is no need for us to adopt such a provision.
Mr. COBB. But they cannot get their patents.
Mr. LETCHER. If they have lived upon their lands four years, they have a right to a patent for it, and they can enforce their right.
Mr. LANE. No, sir; they cannot enforce their right. But, if the gentleman will allow me, what I desire now is, to indicate my willingness, in ac- cordance with the suggestion of the gentleman from Indiana, to confine the privilege of selling portions of claims to those who have perfected their titles bv living upon the land four years.
Mr. PARKER. That is the amendment I pro- posed to offer.
Mr. LANE. Now I ask the gentleman if he will yield me the floor for five minutes?
Mr. LETCHER. I will for that length of time.
Mr. DISNEY. 1 ask the permission of the gentleman from Virginia to say a word at this point? The gentleman has put a hypothetical case, in which he thinks the Government might pos- sibly get a portion of the claim of another person. If I mistake not, he puts it thus: Suppose an indi- vidual who had, under the act of 1850, entered and taken possession of three hundred and twenty acres of land, should, under the provisions of this section, avail himself of the opportunity to sell one half of his claim to a new comer, who, in his turn, should locate another three hundred and twenty acres, and should dispose of half of his tract to the first, what would be the consequence? Each one would have three hundred and twenty acres still, and what would be the difference? By the existing laws each resident is entitled to three hundred and twenty acres, and, of course, each newcomer is entitled to three hundred and twenty acres more; and whether they take it by collusion, or without collusion, makes no practical differ- ence. The operation of the law is precisely the same, and nothing is either gained or lost, either by the individuals themselves, or by the Govern- ment.
But, sir, suppose you take the case which has been put by the gentleman, and in reference to which the gentleman from Oregon seems disposed to yield the point, so far as this section of the bill is concerned. Suppose a party has been in possession of his claim only three months and feels disposed to sell out. ( I wish the gentleman to remember the fact that the condition on which the right was acquired under the act of 1850 was that of four years'occupancy.) And if an individual occupies the land for three months, and the party who pur- chases from him does not continue the occupancy, the condition precedent on which the grant was made is not carried out, and no right accrues to either party. Hence there is nothing in the case that the party who occupies might sell out. There must be a continued occupancy either of the party originally making the location, or of his as- signees, or the condition precedent falls, and nei- ther party is entitled under the act of 1850. Such is the law; and the gentleman from Oregon is yielding to that in which there is no point.
Mr. LANE. I am willing that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia shall be embodied in the bill. Let the proviso be repealed, so far as claims of the description indicated are concerned. Now, I believe that the gentleman has no other objection to the bill.
Mr. LETCHER. Yes, I have something else.
Mr. LANE. I want about five minutes' time.
Mr. LETCHER. Wait a moment, and you shall have it; my remarks will not be long.
My friend from Ohio [ Mr. DISNEY] has one of the happiest faculties of any gentleman within the limits of my acquaintance, lhave never yet seen him opposed to anybody that he was not perfectly satisfied that he was in the right, and that no- body else was, or could be, right. [ Laughter.] I have observed his course on various occasions, not only in the discussion of land questions, but in other matters in this House, and 1 have yet to see the very first man who ever differed from him in opinion, no matter how wide or how slight the difference, that he did notcome to the conclusion, and with a great deal of self- complacency, that he was right, and that it was utterly impossible it could be otherwise.
Now, the gentleman says that my objection to this section has no sort of point to it. What is the objection? I object to the surrender of the whole of the public lands of the country in these Territories. The gentleman admits that these parties may go in there, and that they may, after taking up these lands, divide them to suit their own convenience. With this authority, it will be hard to tell how much land will be occupied by these parties. Under the doctrine of the veto which went into the Senate to- day, I think that we may possibly hope, ere long, to arrest some of this squandering of the public lands. The President says that they ought not to be given up unless there is a full equivalent in value given for them; that the Government ought not to lose the price of them; and under this principle I hope that we may be able to check this principle of giving away. And I hope that it will check it for another reason. Look at the state of things now in this country in the organization of Territories. Here are five Territories organized in the North at this time, one organized in 1848, one which is now the subject of consideration; and, in the space of six years, it has grown so rapidly that at this very time there is a bill on the table to organize it as a State. Well, here are other of these Terri- tories growing up under this spirit of liberality on the part of the Federal Government, which gives away lands to settlers, and withdraws them from the old States. We are building up northern power to create a disparity far greater than at present exists between the North and the South.
I have no objection to the organization of these Territories when they are needed, but I have an objection to using the power of this Government for the purpose of stimulating a hot- housesystem, that shall encourage these Territories, and bring them upon us of the South as States when we are weak enough already in this Government. Under the old policy, our custom was to admit into this Union a free State and a slave State at the same time, and that policy was adhered to for a long series of years, until squatter sovereignty and military authority controlled California, and brought her into the Union as a free State, thus destroying the equality.
If men choose to go into these Territories vol- untarily and settle there for the purpose of bettering their fortunes, let them go. But do not let this Government undertake tojdestroy us of the South by holding out stimulants to the encouragement of northern Territories, the propagation of north- ern sentiment, and the multiplication of northern representatives here and in the Senate. We are the weaker party now in both bodies, and I hope we shall not so legislate as to place us at a greater disadvantage.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Most of the arguments presented by the gentleman from Vir- ginia, might have been very appropriate when the bill proposing to give six hundred and forty acres to the emigrants was before the House for con- sideration. That, however, is now a law. The question whether it was a proper law or not, is not now before us. I think I voted for that law, and that it was a proper one. We wanted to have Oregon settled up, and it was necessary to offer inducements to the people of all parts of the country to go there. It was in the nature of a military occupation. It was consistent with the policy of the Government in various other in- stances. It was in perfect consistency with the policy of my own State. In the early settlement of Georgia large grants of land were given to any individuals who would come and settle the coun- try. I think the policy a wise one, and I am pre- pared to defend it.
But the only question before us at this time, is whether the individuals who have gone out to Oregon and settled there, shall be hampered and restricted by the provisions of that law. Sir, the policy of the Government, whether right or wrong, was for the benefit of those who hazarded every-
thing to go out to that country. Now, if that was the policy, I appeal to the gentleman from Vir- ginia— is it wise, is it just, that we should still trammel and restrict them ? The object, when that law was passed, was to benefit the pioneer. Whv should we not go on and still benefit him? Le't us carry out the same policy. 1 do not see why we should continue the restriction; and I am, there- fore, for repealing this proviso. The Government cannot be injured by it. It is not proposed by this bill to give away another acre of the public lands.
The gentleman argues as if we were disposing of the public lands. He says he is against giving away the public lands in the Territories. This bill does not propose to give away an inch of the public lands. The propriety of such grants is not now the subject- matter of discussion. The simple question is, will you do this act of justice to the western pioneer? and for one, I am disposed to do it.
Mr. LETCHER. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. STEPHENS. Certainly.
Mr. LETCHER. When the gentleman voted for the Oregon land bill, what did he mean by putting in the proviso?
Mr. STEPHENS. The proviso was put in, I suppose, as was stated by the gentleman from Washington Territory [ Mr. LANCASTER] just now, tosatisfy the scruples of somegentlemen who thought that the Hudson's Bay Company would be benefited by the bill.
Mr. LETCHER. That is another thing alto- gether.
Mr. COBB. There was no objection made in the House to the proviso, for I was here at the time.
Mr. STEPHENS. I do not undertake to say why the proviso was put in the bill. I only say that it may have been put in for the reason as- signed by the gentleman from Washington Ter- ritory. I have no distinct recollection of the his- tory of that bill, or why the proviso was put in at all. It may have been thought proper at that time to prevent the claims from being sold. I do not know what the reason was. But when the case comes up now, and the pioneers come here, and through their Representatives here, state to us clear and just reasons why the restriction should be removed, why should we insist on retaining it ? There is no reason for it that I can see.
The question was then taken upon Mr. LETCH- ER'S amendment; and it was rejected.
Mr. COBB. I modify my amendment by adding a proviso:
Provided, The recipients of said act shall have lived four years upon said lands thereby granted.
But, as the gentleman from Indiana [ Mr. PAR- KER] thinks he has an amendment that will answer the purpose better, I will adopt his suggestion.
Air. PARKER. I offer the following amend- ment, which the gentleman from Alabama accepts as a modification of his own.
Provided, That no sale shall be deemed valid until the vender is entitled to a patent for the land.
Mr. COBB. The remark of the gentleman from Oregon, [ Mr. LANE,] that he is willing to accept the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, [ Mr. PARKER,] supersedes the necessity of replying to some of his remarks, as well as those that have fallen from other gentlemen.
Mr. LANE. If the gentleman from Indiana [ Mr. PARKER] will change the phraseology a little, so as to provide that " no person shall be entitled or allowed the privilege of selling his claim until he shall have resided upon it four years," I will accept his amendment.
Mr. COBB. The gentleman from Oregon, I trust, will be satisfied that the objection I made to the section is a correct one.
Mr. LANE. To what section does the gentle- man refer?
Mr. COBB. 1 am not going back to the ori- ginal section. One word of reply here to the remark that has fallen from the honorable gentleman from Oregon, [ Mr. LANE,] that the citizens of Oregon were capable of taking care of themselves. I know that there was a time, perhaps, when the proposition came up in regard to the people of his Territory, that he would not have suggested this second section in the bill. It clearly shows that he was not only capable in his individual capacity, but as their Representative, of well representing them. But let me tell the gentleman from Oregon that while I have been a friend to Oregon, and have endeavored to promote the interests of the people of that Territory, since I have been a mem- ber of this House, I once had occasion to answer to my constituents for a vote I gave in relation to a matter before Congress, which was to put the gentleman from Oregon upon an equality with every other American Representative, so far as his mileage was concerned. My vote upon that j occasion was thoroughly scrutinized, and I was compelled to take the stump to defend it. The gentleman himself was not then capable of man- aging his own affairs to his entire satisfaction. I came to his rescue then, as I have come to the rescue of his citizens whenever I could possibly do it in this House. I was obliged to take the stump in defense of my vote upon that occasion; but, thank God, my constituents vindicated my course, and declared that the old war- worn soldier should be put upon the same footing with every other American Representative, and that he should be paid for the distance that he traveled.
I want to announce to him that I gave that vote, and my people have indorsed me in doing so.
Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Alabama [ Mr. COBB] for his kindness now and on former occa- sions. And I will say to him that he represents a very sensible constituency, [ laughter;] and that he is a very good Representative of that constitu- ency. And to both those facts I shall always be happy to testify on this floor, twenty years hence as well as now.
Now, there are one or two words which 1 feel it to be my duty to say. I desire to call the atten- tion of the committee, not to the amendment— for I am willing to agree to the amendment— but to a few words which came from my friend from Washington Territory, [ Mr. LANCASTER,] in re- lation to the late Delegate from Oregon Territory. My friend from Washington Territory took occa- sion to say for that gentleman— my predecessor— that while here he secured the passage of this pro- viso, for the purpose of preventing the servants of the Hudson's Bay Company from taking and oc- cupying claims; and particularly to deprive Dr. McLaughlin of his property, known as the Oregon City claim. He went on to say that it was this which prevented Dr. McLaughlin— who is the most generous man on the face of God's earth, according to him— from possessing property w hich he was entitled to. He, who had lavishly ex- pended his money for the benefit of American citi- zens arriving in Oregon in a destitute condition, was thus prevented from enjoying the property to which he was justly entitled!
Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot sit here and listen to assaults on the memory of my predecessor, without at least attempting his vindication. Mr. Thurston was among the pioneers of Oregon— the men who, years ago, braved the perils, and en- dured the hardships and privations of the plains and mountains, in migrating to that remote and then comparatively unknown region. He was a man of noble impulses— a spirit adventurous and enterprising, undaunted by dangers, unconquered by difficulties. He was, if not the discoverer, the man who pointed out to others the way to the beautiful and fertile regions that lie beyond the Rocky Mountains.
Possessed of fine literary attainments, of pleas- ing address, affable and kind, he early gained the affections, and secured the confidence of the peo- ple of Oregon; and when a territorial government was organized, he was selected as their first Dele- gate to Congress. No Territory ever had a better Delegate, no people a more vigilant and faithful representative. Among the measures whose pas- sage through Congress was secured by this inde- fatigable servant of the people was the donation law of 1850, under which law the gentleman from Washington now enjoys a domain of six hundred and forty acres on the banks of the Columbia, worth, perhaps, $ 20,000, for all which he is in- debted to the labors of the lamented Thurston. And yet, he rises in his place, in this Hall, and charges his benefactor with an unwarrantable ex- ertion of his influence to secure the passage of a law aimed at, and designed to gratify his malice against a particular individual.
Such a charge he brings, not merely against a benefactor, but a benefactor who fell a victim to his untiring labors in the service of his constitu- ents. Having finished his term in Congress, Mr. Thurston set out on his return, with his health impaired by the many cares that pressed on his mind in the discharge of his official duties. He died on his passage from Panama, and was buried at Acapulco. But the gratitude of the people of Oregon would not permit his body to rest in for- eign soil. His remains were brought by them to Oregon, and now repose at Salem, the capital, in a tomb moistened with the tears, and hallowed by the affections of a grateful people.
Such a charge does injustice, gross injustice, to that man; it does injustice to his memory; it does injustice to his wife, to his orphan children, to say that he procured legislation for the purpose of in- juring any individual, or used his position and in- fluence with such unworthy motives.
The Oregon City claim, I would here add, be- longed to the General Government, and Congress
saw fit to grant it to the Territory for educational purposes. Of their action none have a right to complain.
I have nothing to say, Mr. Chairman, about the individual who has been eulogized so highly by the Delegate from Washington Territory. I know him well. I know that he has some high qualities. And I know another thing, that al- though he may have expended $ 60,000, as the gentleman says, for the benefit of destitute emi- grants arriving at Oregon, I have not always found him so liberal, and no man knows him more intimately, I think, than I do. I only say this much to vindicate the character of one who repre- sented Oregon Territory, and who did, I think, as much as any man on the Pacific coast could have done for the good of his constituency. There are many men here who knew him, who served with him, and who, I believe, will bear me out in saying that I have not spoken too highly in vin- dication of his memory.
Mr. LANCASTER. It is proper that I should make an explanation. I spoke hastily what I have spoken, but nevertheless I spoke the truth. I was a resident in that country before my learned friend [ Mr. LANE.] [ Laughter.] I call him " learned" on the authority of his friend here, [ Mr. COBB.] [ Renewed laughter.] Being a stranger here, 1 take things as 1 find them upon this floor. 1 state here what I know to be the truth. I have no in- terest which would lead me to promulgate what might be deemed untrue, to this House.
I was in that country before General LANE, the Delegate from Oregon was there, and before that Territory was organized. I make these remarks because I wish to show how it is that I have some knowledge upon this subje t. Dr. McLaughlin has done more for the American settlements upon the Pacific coast than all other persons put to- gether. 1 know it to be so.
And I state further, that there is not a single scientific work which has any relation to that country, there is not a report of a naval or of a military officer, there is not a report of a learned gentleman of any profession, who has ever visited that country, in which the hospitality of Dr. Mc- Laughlin is not spoken of. Look at Lieutenant Wilkes's and Colonel Fremont's reports, and at the reports of every other person who has visited that country, and you will see that my statement is correct in every word; and then you can add to that the testimony of hundreds of persons who have gone into that Territory.
Now, what was done in the case of Dr. Mc- Laughlin? He alone, of all the persons upon that coast, was singled out and deprived, by an act of legislation, of his possessions. This old man, gray- headed, and about to tumble into the grave, with all the good qualities which he pos- sesses, was singled out, and his claims taken from him. Who has those possessions which formerly belonged to Dr. McLaughlin? My friend [ Mr. LANE] has part of that which was claimed by him. He knows that perfectly well. Who has the balance of it ? A part was appropriated to the endowment of a university. What sales of his were confirmed in Oregon Territory ? and what lands in Oregon are held by title under that law? The lands which Dr. McLaughlin had given away, and which cost them only the ex- pense of survey and titles. What was his claim ? Oregon City. Who hold the lands now? Real settlers. Up to a certain day the gifts which he made were confirmed to the persons to whom they were made. What else was confirmed? Every particle of the balance was taken from him, and he does not hold a foot by virtue of that do- nation. He is the only man who could not receive the benefit of that donation act.
That was brought about by Mr Thurston, the Delegate, at that time, from Oregon. I state the facts as I know them. Had I his speeches here, I could prove to you the correctness of my asser- tions. He stated that the reason why he was deprived of the benefits of the act, was because he would not grind custom- work at the mill, which he owned, for the toll. At the island mill there, they would grind for custom. For his refusal, Mr. Thurston said the mill and his property should be taken from him. Now, what are the facts of the case? On a certain day, Mr. Thurston and myself, while I was proceeding in the discharge of my duties as supreme judge of the Territory, were together, and w e crossed over the Willamette river. The Doctor's mill was standing still. We then remarked that the time would come when that water- power would be used— speaking in reference to the water- power of the river.
On another day we stood at the same place. The mill was then running, and the mill was sur- rounded by wagons drawn by oxen and mules, with the teamsters and people who were waiting for their grists. We both saw it. Mr. Thurston knew that Dr. McLaughlin was grinding for cus- tomers, and yet not long after, in a speech upon this floor of Congress, he made a statement that the Doctor would not grind grain for customers. I do not say these things to detract from his mem- ory, but I do say that the statement which he made here he knew not to be founded in truth.
Mr. COBB. I can tell the gentleman from Washington what Mr. Thurston said.
Mr. LANCASTER. I know what he said I read his speeches as they were then published.
Mr. COBB. He said Dr. McLaughlin was British.
Mr. LANCASTER. He said he was British; he called him an old Jesuit.
Mr. COBB. I do not recollect that expression.
Mr. LANCASTER. He said it, and he made the charges which I have suggested also.
Mr. DISNEY. I rise to a question of order. This discussion is certainly wide of the subject under consideration.
Several MEMBERS. Oh, no, let him go on.
Mr. LANCASTER. Well, sir, 1 thought it proper to state the causes which led to the inser- tion of this restrictive clause. It has been said that it was to prevent the Hudson's Bay Company from coming into possession of large tracts of land.
Mr. COBB. There is no difficulty about that.
Mr. LANCASTER. There may be no diffi- culty. It may be that I have traveled out of the legitimate line of debate in stating these facts. I have had but little experience in the proceedings of this body, and it may be that I have not kept within the rules of order. I thought it proper, however, to state the reasons which led to placing this restriction in the donation act; andl think so still. I stated that I believed it was to prevent the Hudson's Bay Company from holding the land taken by their servants within the limits of the Territory, and I stated that the object of Mr. Thurston in procuring its insertion was to prevent Dr. McLaughlin from enjoying his possessions, and to prevent the sales which he had made from being confirmed.
A MEMBER. Did Dr. McLaughlin ever receive anything from these sales ?
Mr. LANCASTER. I believe, in some in- stances, he received a nominal sum; perhaps five dollars. But, Mr. Chairman, I will not detain the committee. I have stated what were the reasons which induced Mr. Thurston to procure this re- striction; and I hope it may be the pleasure of the committee to repeal it.
Mr. LANE, of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will bear with me patiently for a few minutes.
[ Cries of " No!" " No !" and " Go on !"]
Mr. LANE. The gentleman from Washing- ton has stated that Mr. Thurston had procured the passage of a law for the purpose of depriving Dr. McLaughlin of certain property which was now in my hands.
Mr. LANCASTER. I said you owned it
Mr. LANE. Well, that is about the same. The gentleman is intentionally honest in his state- ment; but he misses the mark widely sometimes, as I will show. I hope the committee will bear with me, and I will make my explanation as brief as possible. It will be necessary to trace this matter as far back as 1841, in order to under- stand it perfectly. About that time some Ameri- can missionaries erected a mill upon an island in the Willamette river. The building was com- menced in 1841, and the mill was set running, I think, in 1843.
About that time Dr. McLaughlin took a claim upon the main land adjoining, and not upon the island, as the gentleman from Washington has erroneously stated. His claim extended only to the banks of the river. He laid no claim to the island, as the records of the surveys in the Land Office will show. I am certain of the fact, for I have looked at them several times. It can be proved by persons now living in Oregon that he never did a lick of work upon it, or made any im- provement on it at all; and he has never been deprived of any property in consequence of this act to which he was properly entitled, except the Oregon City claim.
The records do not make the island Dr. Mc- Laughlin's. The surveys do not make it Dr. McLaughlin's. The proof does not make it his. It never was his. He was at the head of the Hudson's Bay Company, and had been at the head of it many years before the Constitution and laws of the United States were extended over the coun- try— before my venerable friend [ Mr. BENTON] agitated the importance of taking hold of that country. The Doctor was there, a British sub- ject, at the head of the richest company on the face of the earth, the East India Company ex- cepted. High Heaven never made a more thor-
ough, truer Briton than is the Doctor. He is a perfect aristocratic British gentleman. [ Laughter.] He is British in all his feelings, in all his senti- ments.
With regard to the gentleman from Washing- ton, [ Mr. LANCASTER,] 1 am not prepared to say what part he took in the Cayuse war, how many battles he fought, or how much blood he shed on that occasion. Dr. McLaughlin, although worth nearly $ 500,000, refused to give one single cent for the prosecution of the war. He refused to furnish a single load of powder and ball to fight the enemy. He said that the Americans were to blame; that Dr. Whitman was in the fault, and had no business to go into an Indian country; that his going there would bring on war. This he said, although it was well known to every per- son that Dr. Whitman was actuated by the be- nevolent design of elevating and improving the Indians. That kind of argument he brought for- ward as his excuse for not helping American citi- zens to fight the battles of the country. That is a portion of his history.
It is true, that he treated my friend, Colonel Fremont— a gallant man, whom I love much— and the gentlemen of science who visited that coast, well, handsomely. They all, with the honest impulses of the American heart, on their return from the Pacific, gave him credit for his good treatment of them. But when he got an oppor- tunity to bear down on the poor man, he did it. He did not encourage the settlement of the country. He saw, in my friend from Washington, superior talent. A great lawyer had arrived on the Pacific coast, and it was his interest and advantage to use him, and he has done it. [ Great laughter.] And he has a eulogist in that gentleman, as he has in all others whom he thought could promote his interests in this country. I know him well.
On my way to this city, after having a little row with the Rogue River Indians, I stopped in Oregon City to see my mills. And here I may say, that those mills nearly ruined me, pecuni- arily. Their purchase was the worst thing I ever did. I agreed to give near $ 100,000 for them. I gave the earnings of twenty years of my life, and have now sold out for one third what they cost me. I am not now the owner of a single mill. When I stopped there I found American citizens coming into the Territory. Dr. McLaughlin lives in Oregon City. He is not the feeble, old, de- crepit man that my friend speaks of. He is about seventy- five years of age. His hair is all white; but he is the finest looking- gentleman that you ever saw. He is stout, stately, and weighs over two hundred pounds. He is stouter than I am, and I think that I am stouter than the gentleman from Washington. He bids fair to live for forty years yet, and I think that he will. He is the picture of health. If he does not die with the gout, I question whether he ever will die. [ Great laughter.]
On my trip down I found the poor emigrants in great need of subsistence, worn down with the fatigue of a long journey, and, for the most part, without money to buy the articles so necessary in their then destitute condition. Dr. McLaughlin has mills, thousands of pounds of flour, and large amounts of money, but he would not let them have one pound of flour unless they paid for it. This occurred last fall. If they could get good security, he told them that he would give them credit. A note with good security was presented to him, and then he would not let them have it. [ Laughter.] They could not get even a pound of flour with security, although so very benevo- lent a gentleman.
I mention these facts as history— they are his- tory. I am not here to represent British subjects or British interests, nor have I any feelings in common with British subjects and British inter- ests. I am willing to do justice to Dr. McLaugh- lin. I should be sorry to see Congress deprive him of one particle of his property, but it is ab- surd to say that the Government of the United States shall not make what disposition they please of their own property because it is occupied by British subjects. The rights of British subjects were only to be respected by the treaty stipula- tions. They were placed on an equal footing with American citizens; and had not Congress a right to set aside that land for educational purposes, whether it was my claim or anybody else's claim? I should like some acute lawyer to say if they would. I should like to ask the cha- irman of the Committee on Public Lands, [ Mr. DISNEY.] [ Laughter.] I am not joking. I want some gen- tleman to say whether Congress had not a right to appropriate the Government lands as they chose, to educational purposes, or any other purposes they thought proper?
A MEMBER. That would be a difficult question to answer after the veto.
Mr. LANE. Well, they did reservethat land; but they did not leave Dr. McLaughlin a poor man. I would not undertake to say what he is worth to- day, but he must be worth a quarter or half a million at least; and I should not wonder if he had more than $ 500,000 in cash besides his property. I regard him as an honest man; he pays all his debts. But he is not, in my opinion, entitled to receive any exclusive privileges at the hands of this Congress. I now ask for a vote on the amendment.
Mr. LANCASTER. I merely desire to make a single statement. My belief is, that at the pas- sage of this act, Dr. McLaughlin had declared his intention to become an American citizen; and I here state, before you, sir, and this committee, that he is, as far as a foreigner can be, an Amer- ican citizen; that he has taken the oath of alle- giance, and is, to all intents and purposes, an American citizen. How far he can be pronounced a British subject, under these circumstances, 1 do not know.
Mr. LANE. Allow me to state, for the benefit of the gentleman from Washington, that Dr. McLaughlin did take the oath in my presence when I was Governor of the Territory; but I am not certain that he has completed his naturaliza- tion.
[ Here a message was received from the Senate, by the hands of ASBURY DICKINS, Esq., their Sec- retary, notifying the House that that body had passed Senate bill No. 352, entitled " An act ex- tending, in certain cases, the provisions of the act entitled ' An act to extend preemption rights to certain land therein mentioned,' approved March 3, 1853," and requesting its concurrence therein.]
The CHAIRMAN. The question now is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, [ Mr. PARKER,] providing that no sale shall be deemed valid until the vender is entitled to the patent for the land. The gentleman from Oregon [ Mr. LANE] moves to strike out the words " the vender is entitled to the patent for the same," and insert in lieu thereof the words " unless the vender shall have resided four years upon the land."
Mr. PARKER. I accept the modification.
The question was then taken on Mr. PARKER'S amendment as modified; and it was agreed to.
Mr. COBB. I now withdraw my amendment.
The fourth section of the bill was read, as fol- lows:
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That, in lieu of the two townships of land granted to the Territory of Oregon by the tenth section of the act of 1850, for universities, there shall be granted to each of the Territories of Washington and Oregon, two townships of land of thirty- six sections each, to be selected in legal subdivisions, and applied to university purposes, under the direction of the Legislatures of said Territoires, respectively.
Mr. HENN. I move to amend that section in the fourth line, by striking out the word " grant- ed," and inserting in lieu thereof the word " re- served."
Mr. KNOX. I move that the committee rise.
The question was then taken; and it was decided in the affirmative.
The committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker pro tempore, ( Mr. JONES, of Tennessee,) having taken the chair,' the Chairman reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally, and particularly the special order rela- ting to the territorial business of the organized Territories, and had directed him to report bill No. 315, " to establish the office of surveyor general of New Mexico, to grant donations to actual settlers therein, and for other purposes," with sundry amendments, but had come to no conclusion upon the other bills.
On motion by Mr. LILLY, the House then ad- journed, at three o'clock and forty- five minutes, till to- morrow at twelve o'clock, m. SURVEYOR GENERAL OF UTAH.
The CHAIRMAN. The next bill on the Cal- endar for consideration is House bill No. 317, entitled " A bill to establish the office of surveyor general of Utah, to grant donations to actual set- tlers therein, and for other purposes."
Mr. HENN. I move that the committee do now rise, that general debate may be closed in committee on this bill.
[ Cries of " No!"]
Mr. KERR. Is the motion debatable?
The CHAIRMAN. It is not.
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Has the bill been yet under consideration?
The CHAIRMAN. The bill has not yet been read through.
Mr. JONES. The rule says that the bill shall have its first consideration in committee; and, unless it be considered, it will not be in order to close debate upon it.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill has been read by its title. Unless objected to, the bill will be con- sidered as having been read through the first time for information.
Mr. DISNEY. That was the motion which I was about to submit.
There was no objection.
The question was then taken on the motion that the committee do now rise, and it was disagreed to.
The first section of the bill was read for amend- ment by the Clerk, as follows:
Be it enacted, fyc., That the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint a surveyor general for Utah, whose power and authority, duties, compensation, and allowances for clerk hire, office rent, fuel, & c., shall be the same as now provided by law for the surveyor general of California; and he shall locate his office, from time to time, at such places as may be directed by the President of the United States.
Mr. DISNEY. To make the bill correspond with the one passed on the same subject for New Mexico, I move to strike out all of the section after the word " Utah," and in lieu thereof to in- sert the following:
Whose annual salary shall be $' 3,000, and whose power, authority, and duties shall be the same as those pro- vided by law for the surveyor general of Oregon ; and he shall have proper allowances for clerk hire, office rent, and fuel, not exceeding what now is or hereafter may be al- lowed by law to the said surveyor general of Oregon ; and he shall locate his office, from time to time, at such places as may be directed by the President of the United States.
Mr. HAVEN. I would inquire of the gentle- man from Ohio whether this provision is precisely like that in the New Mexico bill?
Mr. DISNEY. Verbatim.
The question was then taken on Mr. DISNEY'S amendment; and it was agreed to.
The Clerk then reported the second section.
Mr. DISNEY. In order to make this section correspond with the amendments made to the New Mexico bill, I move to strike out from the first to the seventeenth lines, as follows:
That to every white male American citizen of the United States, or to every white male inhabitant who has declared his intention to become such, over the age of twenty- one years, who removed to and was residing in said Territory prior to the 1st day of January, 1853, there shall be, and hereby is, donated one half section, or three hundred and twenty acres of land, if single, but if married, one section, or six hundred and forty acres ; and to each white male American citizen, who shall have removed, or shall remove to, and settle in said Territory, between the 1st day of January, 1853, and the 1st day of January , 1858, there shall, in like manner, be donated one quarter section, or one hundred and sixty acres, if a single man, or if mar- ried, one half- section, or three hundred and twenty acres, on condition of actual settlement and cultivation for not less than four years,
and to insert in lieu thereof the following:
That to every white male citizen of the United States, or to every white male, over twenty- one years of age, who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who is now a resident of said Territory, or who prior to the first day of January, 1858, shall remove to and settle in said Territory, and shall continue to reside therein, be donated a quarter section or a hundred and sixty acres, on condi- tion of actual settlement and cultivation for not less than four years.
Mr. DISNEY. I desire to state for the in- formation of the committee, that it is the identical amendment adopted in the New Mexico bill re- ported by the committee to the House on yester- day.
The question was then taken on the amend- ment; and it was agreed to.
The third section was then read, as follows:
SEC. 3. And beltfurther enacted, That on proofof settle- ment and cultivation, as required by this act, to the satis- faction of the surveyor general, or other officer designated by law for that purpose, subject to the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, a certificate shall be issued to the party entitled, on presentation of which, if approved by the Secretary of the Interior, a patent shall issue thereon : Provided, however, That on the death of any such settler, before the completion of the four years' occupancy and cul- tivation required by this act, the right shall descend to his beirs- at- law, who shall be entitled to a certificate and patent as aforesaid on proof, as before provided, of continued oc- cupancy and cultivation by iuch settler to the time of his
death: Provided, however, That when lands are claimed under any of the provisions of this act by persons who are not citizens of the United States, patents shall not issue therefor until they become citizens: And provided further, That the benefits of this act shall not extend to any person who shall now, or at any time hereafter, be the husband of more than one wife.
Mr. BERNHEISEL. I move to amend the third section by striking out all after the word " citizen," in the eighteenth line, being the last proviso.
Mr. HA VEN. I hope the committee will adopt the amendment of the Delegate from Utah, [ Mr. BERNHISEL.] One reason is, that I do not desire, by any legislation which we may enact here, to recognize any such institution as that in Utah.
Mr. LETCHER. I think it would be as well to leave this matter alone; but the only objection I have to it is, that the committee did not apply the same sort of provision to gentlemen who are to get $ 3,000 a year out there in the way of sala- ries. I cannot understand why a section of the bill was reported authorizing a salary of $ 3,000 to be paid to men who had half a dozen wives without any restriction whatever, and why this third section should be reported with a restriction confined to settlers alone. My object in rising was to ascertain from the chairman of the Com- mittee on Public Lands the reason for this dis- crimination; why the settler should be punished for having more wives than one, while office- holders, who are in the receipt of large salaries, not only have the benefit of money, but of the women to boot. [ Laughter.]
Mr. DAVIS, of Rhode Island. I do not see that this discrimination is any worse than that of inserting the word " white in these territorial bills. I do not see that it is legislating in favor of any worse institution than we have already pre- pared to establish by making this other discrim- ination in favor of white citizens alone. I do not know that it is any worse than legislating in favor of an institution which knows nothing of mar- riage between a large class of people, which does not even regulate the institution of marriage in any form whatever. And yet, with all the defects of Utah, they have some regulation as to the rela- tion of man and woman. And it seems to me, as far as I can discover, that the institution of the South is calculated to denationalize our Territo- ries, and to prepare them to introduce a system of promiscuous concubinage, so far as one portion of the community is concerned, and to give one portion of the community full power and control over another portion of the community.
I do not particularly object to this amendment, unless the other amendment is also carried; and I see no good policy in making such a distinction as this I would as lief have Utah come into this Union with their defective institutions as to have a slave State come into it. I do not think that there is more evil in the one than there is in the other; but I am opposed to the admission of either without conformity to the general and well set- tled principles of the moral laws, as they are known and understood by every reasonable man.
Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I only take occasion to remark, that nothing sur- prises me more than to hear gentlemen who never were in a slave State, perhaps, in their lives, dis- course ex cathedra on the character of our institu- tions. Now, the gentleman from Rhode Island [ Mr. DAVIS] speaks upon this subject as though a common indiscriminate intercourse of the sexes existed among a portion of the population of the southern States. But I would have that member to know that the tie of marriage is, in many re- spects, to a very large extent, as sacredly ob- served among the negroes of the South as it is among the people from whom he comes. And I do not hesitate to say that the crime of inconti- nence is as rare in the southern States as it is in the great State of Rhode Island. If, however, the gentleman from that State is prepared, in con- nection with this subject, to get up and justify the institution of Mormonism— an institution which authorizes a man to have as many wives as he can maintain— if, I say, he is prepared to maintain such an institution as that, on so poor a pretext, let him go home and justify himself to his constituency. I hope, sir, the provision will not be striken out. I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama, [ Mr. COBB.]
Mr. COBB. The honorable gentleman from Virginia [ Mr. LETCHER] propounded a question to the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands. As he has not answered that interroga- tory, I will do it for him. The honorable gentle- man, the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, did not, perhaps, have the opportunity of knowing the circumstances attending the intro- duction of this provision into the bill. He was not present at the meeting of the committee when that provision was discussed and resolved on. But I can give an answer for myself to the ques- tion proposed by the gentleman from Virginia.
Sir, I advocated that provision before the com- mittee, and I shall advocate it here, believing that it is right. I believe that this Government, when they propose to grant donations without any par- ticular consideration, should— and it is their prov- ince to— discriminate and encourage that class for whose peculiar advantage these donations are in- tended.
Mr. LETCHER. That is not the point of my question.
Mr. COBB. I am coming to the other point in a moment. The gentleman from Virginia speaks of giving large salaries to persons occupying the position which I understand the Governor of Utah does. Now, without intending any disrespect even to the Delegate from that Territory, I will say that I am myself opposed to the principle of encouraging these individuals by giving them large salaries. And so far as my own action is concerned, I am opposed to increasing their sala- ries. And when the time comes, the gentleman from Virginia will find that my opposition is real and sincere.
As I have been the zealous advocate from the first of ingrafting on the bill the provision now proposed to be stricken out, I desire to propound a few questions to the Delegate from Utah, which, if he answers to my satisfaction, I may, perhaps, and in all probability will, vote for striking out the provision to which he objects.
Mr. LETCHER. The gentleman will allow me to interrupt him a moment.
Mr. COBB. But I want to propound a ques- tion to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. LETCHER. Exactly; but as my friend from Alabama has not got exactly to the right point, I want to bring him to it before he under- takes to catechise the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. COBB. I do not want to catechise the gentleman. 1 wish only to propound a question or two.
Mr. LETCHER. I wish to know, while you will vote for this restriction to the third section of this bill, why you did not put the like restriction upon the first section, which relates to the salaries of officers, & c. ?
Mr. COBB. Permit me to say to the gentleman that my vote, when I come to vote upon the bill, will answer his question.
But I wish to put a few questions now to the Delegate from Utah, [ Mr. BERNHISEL.] I may have been too rigid in the principles which I have been accustomed to entertain, and 1 desire to propound a few questions to the Delegate from that Territory, with a view to correct my own judgment, if it should appear to be wrong.
As I have been upon former occasions, so I am now, disposed to do what 1 believe to be right; and if I have formed an ineorrect idea of the prac- tices which exist in Utah, and of the actions of individuals there, 1 may be doing great injustice to them by advocating the retention of this pro- viso in the bill. I will accordingly ask the gen- tleman from Utah whether this proviso, which limits the benefits of this act to persons who have now, or hereafter have, only one wife, will, in his opinion, work any very considerable injustice or hardship to any considerable number of the inhab- itants of the Territory of Utah ?
I do not desire to do any great injustice to any set of people, or to any individuals; and if the gentleman, the Delegate from Utah, will tell me that the proviso will work any great hardship to a considerable number of individuals in the Ter- ritory which he represents, I may perhaps change my mind and views upon this question. Until I am satisfied upon that point, I must insist, so far as my vote is concerned, upon the retention of the proviso in this bill.
It is a most wholesome proviso, and one which the Government ought to see carried out. The principle that an individual should have only one wife is a good one, and should be supported. 1 hope the proviso will not be stricken out.
Mr. BERNHISEL. In answer to the ques- tion of the gentleman from Alabama, I will state that the proviso will work injury to a very con- siderable number of the inhabitants of the Terri- tory of Utah. The more wives a man has, the more farms he needs to support them. [ Laughter.]
Mr. COBB. That is all I wanted to know, and I am glad to hear the response of the gentleman.
Mr. GIDDINGS. If there is any one feature of legislation which should be adhered to by statesmen, it is that of dealing out the same meas- ure of justice to all who are affected by their legislation. Nov/, sir, for weeks and months, I have sat here and heard gentlemen denounce all attempts to interfere with the domestic institu- tions of our Territories. From the commence- ment of the discussion upon the Nebraska ques-
tion to this day, scarcely a southern man has spoken who has not sneered at, condemned, and repudiated all attempts " to interfere with the domes- tic institutions of our Territories." They are now in favor of interfering with the domestic institu- tion of marriage in Utah, among the Mormons.
Now, sir, I do not understand this practice of facing to the " right and left," and to the " right about" and " left about" at the bidding of some drill sergeant. How long are we to sit here and see gentlemen assume one position to- day and another to- morrow ? When will gentlemen upon this floor learn that the people of this great nation expect something like consistency of action on the part of their statesmen ?
I am earnest upon this subject. I am myself in favor of this proviso, taken as an independent proposition. It is in favor of morality, of pro- priety, of decency, and good order. But I never will go for it while we legislate for slavery in our Territories, and the admission of slave States, and permit the inhabitants of Nebraska to make such regulations in regard to their domestic institutions, including slavery and unlimited concubinage. I would deal out to the Mormon the same measure of justice and freedom that I would give to the citizens of Nebraska, with their hundreds of con- cubines. I will permit the Mormon to enjoy his dozen wives, and I believe I could do it with a great deal better conscience than I could give the slaveholder the privilege of an unlimited number of concubines.
Now, sir, when the Mormon marries, he does it openly before the public. The act is lawfully registered; and, when it has taken place, the wo- man assumes and takes the same standing in so- ciety and in the community as her husband. He recognizes her as his lawful partner. His children are legitimate. They are educated; they are taught to understand the laws of the country, and its Constitution. They become enlightened and intelligent, and may become useful members of the community.
Sir, the Mormon does not sell his wife, nor does he sell his children. No, sir. God forbid. The Mormon recognizes his child as entitled to his care, to his attention, to his protection, to the privileges of education. He does not sell his own offspring to a slave dealer. No, sir; no, sir. The gentleman over the way, from Virginia, [ Mr. SMITH,] says that negroes in the South are entitled to marriage. Why, sir, am I to stand here at this day and proclaim that there is no such institution as legal marriage among three millions of slaves in the United States ? A fact of which we all are con- scious. Is it not true that the gentleman who has made the declaration, would sell the wife of his slave to- morrow, if he could get his price for her? Or, that he would do worse, perhaps ? That there is no law in Virginia to protect that female from the outrages of a brutal owner.
Are we to sit here, month after month, and hear discussions in favor of promiscuous, unlimited concubinage in the South, and then turn round and pass laws limiting the Mormons in Utah in respect to m arriage ?
Mr. Chairman, if you will adopt a rule I will follow it. I would deal out the same measure of justice to the Mormons that I would give to those of Nebraska. I would exclude slavery and polyg- amy from both, and from all Territories.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I do not rise to reply to any- thing which has fallen from the gentleman from Ohio [ Mr. GIDDINGS] who has just taken his seat; for I could not, nor could any man who knew what was due to himself, or what was due to the respecta- bility of the House of which he is a member, trust himself to reply to such language as has fallen from that gentleman. I leave him to his own con- science, and to the reprobation of his constitu- ents; and if neither of them can serve as a moni- tor, I shall not undertake to correct or counsel him. I have no further reply to make to him.
I rose, sir, when the gentleman from Ohio ob- tained the floor, for the purpose of expressing my entire concurrence in the motion to strike out this provision. 1 say that it is a provision which has no parallel in the legislation of this country. It is another step onward in the progress of central- ization on the part of this Government, of which this Congress has already given some strong evi- dences. We are not only now undertaking to regulate the industry of the country, to regulate the education of the country, to become the general almoner for all its charities; but we are now undertaking to regulate its morality. Sir, where, in the legislation of Congress, will any gentleman point me to a precedent where such a provision as this has ever been annexed to any legislation of Congress ? Why, sir, in the homestead bill which this House has passed, was there any provision that no man shall be- come a « ettler who had been an adulterer; that no man should be entitled to the benefit of a homestead who had taken the life of his brother, or who had committed a larceny, or any crime whatever? Is there to be found such a provision in any of our laws making donations of land to settlers? Why is it that in this bill, in reference to the only Territory where this is regarded as a legal institution, this provision is inserted. Why, sir, if in Utah, which is an or- ganized Territory governing itself, the marriage of more than one wife is illegal, it is punishable there as a crime; and if legal, it is a most extraor- dinary thing, that having permitted the organiza- tion of a Territory where this is a known legal institution, that when we pass bills for that Terri- tory we exclude from its benefits all the persons who are living in said Territory.
Why, sir, I say that there is no principle what- ever on which this is founded; and the remark of the gentleman from Virginia [ Mr. LETCHER] to the inquiry was perfectly legitimate. For if we exclude these men from the benefit of settlements on the land, on the ground that they are in the commission of a crime, why, he asked, do you not annex the same condition to the salaries of the important officers in the same country? You have given salaries to the Governor and judicial officers of that Territory. Why, then, has not this con- dition been annexed to those salaries ?
I say that Congress has nothing to do whatever with this transaction. We are disposing of the public land. It is not necessary or proper for this Government to make this condition. How is it to be worked out ? Who is to investigate the fact ? If you are making a provision, it ought to be a provision with some sanction; there should be some mode of enforcing it. What provision is there here for ascertaining the fact whether the party is entitled to make the entry ?
To what tribunal have you delegated the inquiry to know whether the person applying for this benefit is subject to the condition ? Sir, there is nothing of all this; and it looks to me to be most out of place, and most inopportune. It is certainly with- out the slightest precedent in the past history of the country; and I trust, therefore, that this mo- tion to strike out will prevail.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not very particular whether this provision is retained in the bill or not. 1 believe that Congress has the right to intervene in the regulation of all matters that appertain to the welfare and morals of the people who may settle in this Territory. I sub- scribe fully to the doctrine of intervention, so far as those Territories are concerned. I believe that in every State of this Union it is made a high of- fense to have more than one wife, legal and moral. It is regarded by public sentiment as a moral of- fense, and it is made by law a penal offense; and 1 believe that Congress has a right to interpose a provision of this kind.
But I rose more for the purpose of replying to the suggestion that was made by the honorable member from Alabama, who says that our legis- lation is tending strongly to centralization and consolidation. I, like my colleague, [ Mr. GID- DINGS,] desire to see something like consistency here. I have always, during my whole career, opposed this doctrine of centralization. The gen- tleman professes to be in favor of States' rights, and in favor of having public sentiment reflected in the halls of legislation; and yet, I apprehend, that no member in this House more readily yields an acquiescence in the suggestions which come from the other end of the avenue than the hon- orable gentleman from Alabama. Consolidation and centralization ! Who is more ardently in favor of the bill which is now before this House, and which we are notified will be pressed forward next week— I allude to the Nebraska bill— than the gentleman from Alabama? What voice has come here in favor of this bill to repeal the Missouri compromise, from any sovereign State of this Union, by resolves of its Legislature, or by the declaration of the popular masses as- sembled in districts, in counties, in townships, or in town meetings? None, sir; it is an edict from the White House. I am in favor of States' rights and of popular rights, and am for re- sisting all attempts that may be made to over- whelm in the halls of legislation that which is known to be the sentiment of the people of this land. Sir, it sounds strange to me to hear a gen- tleman condemning that which seems to be, in this instance, centralization and consolidation, who is in favor of hurrying through in hot haste a measure that ( is to affect a vast empire in the future, when no voice has been raised from any State or from any portion of the people of this land in favor of it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind the gentleman from Ohio [ Mr. CAMPBELL] that he
must confine his remarks to the subject immedi- ately under discussion.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am considering this doc- trine of centralization and consolidation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must again remind the gentleman from Ohio that the discus- sion must be confined to the bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am in favor of State sovereignty and popular rights, and I would to- day, if I could, before the sun sets, give the pub- lic domain, were it necessary to do so, to construct between this Capitol and the other end of the avenue a gulf so wide and deep that it would be impassable. I would fill it, if I could do so, with burning lava from the hottest crater of Vesuvius, so that no member from Alabama, or Ohio, or any other State of this Union, could ascertain what was the Executive will. To be sure, I would have a sort of subterranean telegraph, so that we might understand that the laws of the land were executed; but I would never permit a member of the House of Representatives to know what was the presidential will. Resistance to centralization and consolidation was the doctrine to which 1 subscribed in early youth, in the con- test of 1832, when I first became a voter, and looked upon the record of public doings and saw in what manner the Executive power of this coun- try controlled public will. There was a veto sent down, yesterday, to the other Chamber
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gentleman from Ohio that he is not in order in referring to what took place in the Senate.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I beg pardon
Mr. DISNEY. Are we not acting under a special order?
Mr. CAMPBELL. 1 suppose we shall be considering this veto some of these days, and I hope we shall hear then from my honorable friend from Alabama [ Mr. PHILLIPS] something more about this doctrine of centralization and consoli- dation of power.
Mr. PHILLIPS. If the gentleman desires to know what I would do in reference to the veto, I will inform the gentleman from Ohio that he will find me one of its warmest advocates, because of the principle of States' rights which I have advo- cated .
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind gentlemen that the veto is not under discussion here.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I hope when the veto mes- sage does come here that we shall meet this ques- tion of doctrine and consolidation, compare notes, and go back and trace through the whole history of the country this doctrine of Executive usurp- ation.
Mr. ORR. I call the gentleman to order.
Mr. CAMPBELL, it has been intimated to me that I am perhaps taking too large a latitude. Perhaps I am making an old- fashioned Whig speech; and perhaps it is proper that I should draw my remarks to a close. 1 wish it distinctly understood that I am a friend of these Territories. I have assisted the honorable gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Territories, as far as I could, to facilitate territorial business, and I think the Delegates of the Territories will bear me witness that I am friendly to these Territories, and anxious to have the business relating to them disposed of.
Although this is a fruitful theme, and one on which I am not only ready now, but shall be ready in the future, to meet the honorable gentle- man from Alabama, yet I do not wish to consume the time of the committee under such circum- stances; and therefore I resume my seat.
The discussion was continued until nearly four o'clock, touching the constitutional power of Con- gress, directly and indirectly, to arrest polygamy in the Territory of Utah.
The committee then rose, and the House, at four o'clock, adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, May 5, 1854.
The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by Rev. HENRY SLICER.
The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. EDGERTON. I would inquire of the Chair whether the special order takes precedence, this being Friday, over the Private Calendar?
The SPEAKER. The special order covers the entire week. The business first in order before the House is upon the agreement to certain amend- ments reported to the House from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to cer- tain bills relating to the organized Territories.
Mr. LETCHER. I move that the House re- solve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of re- suming territorial business.
Mr. BENSON. I ask the gentleman to waive his motion for a moment, in order to afford me the opportunity to present to the House some resolutions passed by the Legislature < rf the State of Maine.
Mr. LETCHER. I have no objection to do so.
RESOLUTIONS OF STATE LEGISLATURES.
Mr. BENSON then asked and obtained the unanimous consent of the House, and presented joint resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Maine, as follows:
1st. In favor of cheap ocean postage.
2d. In relation to certain proposed modifications of the navigation laws of the United States, al- lowances of bounties to fishing vessels, and recip- rocal trade with the North American Colonies.
3d. In relation to the revenue laws of the United States.
4th. In favor of the abolition of spirit rations in the United States Navy.
Which were severally laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WALLEY. Also, by unanimous consent, presented to the House resolutions passed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, in relation to, and in favor of, establish'ng_/ ioafwig schools for the edu- cation of seamen; which were referred to the Com- mittee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. CROCKER asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce thefollowingresolution; which was read for information:
Resolved, That on Tuesday next the committees shall be called and have leave to report bills of a private charac- ter only, which, on being read a first and second time, shall be referred to the Committee of the Whole House without debate.
Objection being made, the resolution was not introduced.
Mr. LETCHER. I now submit my motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with a view to resume the consideration of territorial business.
ADJOURNMENT OVER.
Mr. LILLY. I rise to a question of privilege. I move that when the House adjourns, it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Upon that motion I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I would in- quire of the Chair what number of territorial bills yet remain to be acted upon ?
The SPEAKER. Some twelve or thirteen.
Mr. CAMPBELL. There is plenty of time to consider them next week.
Mr. STEPHENS. I think we may as well attend to this business this week.
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. It is the special order, and let us consider it now.
The yeas and nays were then ordered.
Mr. LANE, of Oregon. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion.
Mr. LILLY. I cannot.
The question was then taken upon Mr. LILLY'S motion, and decided in the negative— yeas 57, nays 76; as follows:
YEAS— Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Ball, Benson, Bugg, Campbell, Chrisman, Cook, Corwin, Cox, Crocker, Cullom, Cutting, Dick, Dickinson, Disney, Thomas D. El- iot, Flagler, Franklin, Green, Harrison, Howe, Hunt, Daniel T. Jones, Kittredge, Knox, Letcher, Lilly, McCul-
loch, Mace, Matteson, Murray, Norton, Parker, Peckham, Pennington, Bishop Perkins, Riddle, David Ritchie, Sapp, Seward, Simmons, Gerrit Smith, Snodgrass, Richard H. Stanton, Hestor L. Stevens, John L. Taylor, Tracy, Up- hatn, Wade, Walbridge, Walker, Walley, Walsh, Israel Washburn, Tappan Wentworth, and Wheeler— 57.
NAYS— Messrs. James C. Allen, David J. Bailey, Barks- dale, Boyce, Breckinridge, Carpenter, Caskie, Clark, Cling man, Cobb, Curtis, John G. Davis, Drum, Dunbar, Eddy, Edgerton, Edtnundson, John M. Elliott, Ellison, Fenton, Gamble, Greenwood, Hamilton, Sampson W. Harris, Henn, Houston, Hughes, Ingersoll, George W. Jones, Kerr, Kurtz, Lane, Lindsley, Macdonald. McDougall, McNair, Meach- am, Middleswarth, Smith Miller, Millson, Noble, Olds, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, John Perkins, Phelps, Phillips, Pow- ell, Pratt, Puryear, Ready, Reese, Richardson, Ruffin, Russell, Seymour, Shower, Samuel A. Smith, William R. Smith, George W. Smyth, Alexander H. Stephens, Strat- ton, Andrew Stuart, John J. Taylor, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Thurston, Trout, Vail, Ellihu B. Washburrie, Wells, John Wentworth, Hendrick B. Wright, and Zollicofler— 73.
So the House refused to adjourn over till Mon- day.
The question was then taken upon Mr. LETCH- ER'S motion; and decided in the affirmative.
So the rules were suspended.
The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, ( Mr. PHELPS in the chair.)
The CHAIRMAN. When the committee was last in session it had under consideration the bill of the House No. 317, entitled " A bill to estab- lish the office of surveyor general of Utah, to grant donations of lands to actual settlers therein, and for other purposes." The amendments pend- ing were to strike out the last proviso of the third section, and to strike out all after the word " per- son;" the latter submitted by the gentleman from Virginia, [ Mr. LETCHER.]
Mr. LETCHER. I will modify my amend- ment so that, if adopted, the section will read thus:
That the benefits of the second and third sections o this act shall not extend to any person.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, as amended.
Mr. DISNEY. I wish to say a word
The CHAIRMAN. Further debate is not in order. Debate on the amendment was exhausted on the amendment before the committee rose last evening.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Ohio. Has the gentleman the right to modify his amendment after debate on it has been exhausted ?
The CHAIRMAN. He has the right.
Mr. DISNEY. In order to say a word, I shall move an amendment merely as matter of form.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is one in the second de- gree.
Mr. DISNEY. Will the Chair allow me to suggest that it is only an amendment in the first degree, because, on a motion to strike out, it is in order to move to amend the part proposed to be stricken out. Now, the original motion here was to strike out the proviso. The motion of the gentleman from Virginia is not an amendment in the second degree, not an amendment to the mo- tion to strike out, but an amendment touching the subject- matter proposed to be stricken out.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio will proceed. The Chair was too hasty in his decision.
Mr. DISNEY. I move a pro forma amend- ment. Yesterday I explained, Mr. Chairman, as far as this question was concerned, that I felt little or no interest in it. I stated, that in the bill which [ originally submitted to the Committee on Public Lands, there was nothing said in relation to Mormons. I felt it to be my duty to explain yesterday, as did the Delegate from Utah, that, by custom and statutory law of that Territory, polygamy was recognized there.
Mr. LETCHER. Read the law, and let us hear what it is. Members would like to know it.
Mr. DISNEY. It can be read when I have concluded.
Mr. HUNT. Mr. Chairman, I call for the reading of the law, in order that the gentleman'* time may not be consumed.
The CHAIRMAN. When the gentleman from Ohio has concluded his remarks, the law will be read at the Clerk's desk.
Mr. HUNT. We can understand his remarks better if the law be read first.
Mr. LETCHER. The gentleman had better have it read now. We shall be able to understand his remarks better after we have heard the law.
Mr. DISNEY. Well, I will send it to the Clerk's desk to be read.
The Clerk read the law; which is as follows:
" The homestead, occupied by the wife, or any portion of the family of the deceased at the time of his dealt), shall in all cases be held free to the use of the wife and family of the deceased, and shall not be liable to any claim or claims against said estate; and if there be other property remaining after the liabilities of the estate are liquidated, then it shall, in the absence of other arrangements by will, descend in equal shares to his children, or their heirs ; one share to such heirs through the mother of such children, if she shall survive him, during her natural life, or during her widow- hood1; or, if he has had more than one wife, who either died, or survived in lawful wedlock, it shall be equally di- vided between the living and the heirs of those who are dead, such heirs taken by right of representation."
Mr. DISNEY ( who was very imperfectly heard, owing to the noise prevailing around the reporters' desks) then said: The committee will observe the peculiar phraseology: " a party who has had more than one wife, who survives him in lawful wedlock."
My object, however, in rising this morning, was to call the attention of the committee to the point involved in the pending question. This bill con- tains the same provision in relation to the Terri- tory of Utah that has been made in relation to all other Territories. By it Congress practically says to the emigrant: If you remove to this Territory and settle there, we shall esteem it a service, and such a service that we will give you one hundred and sixty acres of land as a consideration for it. As I have already stated, polygamy is recognized by statutory law in this Territory. How far it may be competent for. Congress to interfere with regard to the existence of that institution, is not the question now before us. We certainly cannot reach it in this way. It is simply a question of policy, whether we will encourage the emigration of Mormons to this particular Territory. The refusal to make this donation cannot affect the existence of the institution itself.
With regard to the question of the power of Congress, every gentleman can see and examine the arguments on both sides. The only point really involved in this question is, whether Con- gress will esteem it politic to offer donations of land to induce Mormons to emigrate to this par- ticular Territory, or whether, by a refusal to grant them the same inducement that you hold out to other people, you will interpose a barrier, and, to that extent, discourage the emigration of Mor- mons into this Territory.
Mr. PERKINS, of New York. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [ Mr. DISNEY.] I think that this clause ought to remain as it is, or except from it the provision that excludes the poor man, if he happens to have but two wives, from having; any land. If we are to give Governors, judges, and other Federal offi- cers in that Territory, large salaries, to enable them to support thirty or forty wives, and allow the lords and the high spiritual dignitaries of the Mormon establishment, not only this large number of wives, but salaries of $ 3,000 or $ 4,000, I can see no reason for excluding the poor fellow who has been enticed there from enjoying any land, if he hap- pens to have two wives instead of thirty or forty.
I have seen recently in the newspapers a state- ment declaring that no law shall be cited, except the statutes of the United States, in any court whatever in the Territory of Utah. Then the common law is not recognized there, and the spir- itual law is recognized, if this statement in the newspapers is true, which gives the privilege and right to a person there to have as many wives as he can get. It seems to me utterly preposterous, and will be disgraceful to this Congress, to allow the Governors, judges, and other officers ap- pointed by the Government of the United States, to hold their offices, at large salaries, and have just as many wives as they please, as their sala- ries will enable them to support, and yet prohibit the poor man from enjoying the benefit of land there, if they happen to have only two wives. [ Laughter.]
Mr. DISNEY. With the leave of the com- mittee, I withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, the gentleman from Ohio [ Mr. DISNEY] will be permitted to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. BOYCE. I move to amend by striking out the third section.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment pro- posed by the gentleman from South Carolina [ Mr. BOYCE] would not be in order at this time. An amendment is now pending whieh must first be entertained and disposed of, before any amend- ment can be entertained to strike out the section.
Mr. BOYCE. I move, then, to add the follow- ing words: " more than one wife, or to be guilty of any irreligious practice."
No one can be more opposed to polygamy than I am. I have no idea of proceedingin any matter blindly. What right has this Government to in- terfere with the religious relations of the people in this Territory? The whole power which this Government exercises over the Territory is sim- ply that of a constructive character. Where is it derived from ? There is no express clause in the Constitution in relation to this matter. The authority which is derived from that clause which prescribes the right of making all needful rules and
regulations for the Territories, clearly does not authorize a governmental power. It is said by the best writers on constitutional law, to be de- rived as an incident to the treaty- making power; they lay down the principle thus: because you have the right to acquire territory, you have also the right to govern it.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the right to govern the Territory is not an unlimited power of Government. It is subject to all the express limitations of the Constitution that may be applicable to the subject; and the subject is liable to all the implied limita- tions derivable from the nature of this Govern- ment. Sir, what is the object of the government of the Territory? The governments of Territo- ries are organized merely for the purpose of pro- tecting the Territories in their infant state, until they are able to become States. The whole pow- er of the Government over the Territories should be eonfined to that narrow sphere of protecting the rights of persons and things until they are able to become States. It by no means implies that Con- gress has a right to interfere with the domestic, the social, or the religious relations of the people. Their religious relations, I say, are not to be in- terfered with. This is a religious subject; and because it is a religious subject, it is one of great magnitude.
But, Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing clear in reference to the power of Congress, it is that it has no right to interfere with the subject of religion. That is the very first of the amendments to the Constitution; it stands at the head of all the amendments. Congress shall pass no law upon this subject. But it may be said that this religion of the Mormons is not a true religion— that it is a false religion. But I do not think that Congress has any right to say that this or that religion is true or false. Who made us judges over this matter? Who appointed us apostles, or bishops, or priests? Why, Mr. Chairman, if there is any one subject which this Congress does not under- stand practically, I expect it is this very subject of religion.
I ask you, sir, who* set us up to be judges of other people's religion ? Who gave us authority to legislate for them on the subject of religion? But it may be supposed that it is no great viola- tion of the principles of the Constitution to inter- fere with the religion of the Mormons; but once you break in upon that principle, once you violate it in any regard, where will you stop? I am op- posed to any infraction at all of the Constitution on this point. Let all religions be free. Let every man worship God according to his own heart and conscience.
Well, again, Mr. Chairman, the spirit of this bill is at war with another clause of the Constitu- tion, which says, that Congress shall pass no bill of attainder. I. know that, legally and technically, the clause applies to the passage of acts of Parlia- ment depriving a man of his life. But the Supreme Court have determined that the term contained in this clause of the Constitution applies to all kinds of legislation by which any pains or penalties are inflicted upon persons. It is to prohibit any kind of legislation by which Congress places itself in the condition of the judiciary to judge, and hear, and determine the cause itself. Now, I ask, what is the bill before us but a bill of pains and penalties against this people, against a whole nation ? Why, sir, we have no parallel in our history
[ Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I understood the gentleman from South Carolina [ Mr. BOYCE] to admit the constitutional power in Congress to donate these lands absolutely to actual settlers. Now, sir, I want to know from him, and I inquire for the sake of obtaining information, whether, if Congress has the power to make an absolute grant, it has not also the power to affix conditions to the grant ?
A MEMBER, ( in his seat.) Not if the provis- ions of the bill are unconstitutional.
Mr. CAMPBELL. 1 was not inquiring of the honorable gentleman on my left; it was to his colleague [ Mr. BOYCE] that I propounded the question: " Not if the provisions are unconstitu- tional?" The honorable gentleman from South Carolina says that we would be interfering with the religious rights of the people of Utah by re- taining this provision. Now, Mr. Chairman, I assume the position that if you can give away the land at all, you may affix such conditions to the grant as Congress may regard as wholesome and necessary for the protection of sound morals and the public good. To illustrate my views, Mr. Chairman
Mr. BOYCE, ( interrupting.) Will the gentle- man from Ohio allow me to make a remark?
Mr. CAMPBELL. In a moment. I wish to put a case to the honorable member from South Carolina.
Suppose that, in the wildness of religious fanat- icism in Utah, the Mormons should imagine that they had received a revelation from the prophet Joe Smith which required them to enact an eccle- siastical law to the effect that the eldest born of every woman in that Territory should, when it was one month old, be sacrificed and slaughtered: and suppose, further, that, under such circum- stances, that people should come here and ask Congress to make a grant of lands to encourage settlement under a system of that kind; would not the honorable gentleman, acting in the capacity of a guardian, and representing a people having a joint interest with all the rest of the people of this land in that domain, deem it proper and advisable to provide that no person who subscribed to, and practiced upon, the principles of such a religion, or rather fanaticism, should have a grant of land? Now I will yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [ Mr. BOYCE] to answer my question.
Mr. BOYCE. I propose to ask the gentleman from Ohio *
Mr. CAMPBELL. I propose that you an- swer the question, which I have already propound- ed, first.
Mr. BOYCE. You put an extreme case, and I believe it is customary to answer one question by asking another.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Answer the question first, and then propound yours.
Mr. BOYCE. Then I will say that I would do nothing to recognize such a state of things.
Now, I will ask the gentleman whether Con- gress has the right to declare, in this bill, that no Presbyterian should have the privilege of taking a portion of this land ?
Mr. CAMPBELL. If a Presbyterian church in Utah, actuated by a wild fanaticism, should de- clare, by an ecclesiastical provison, the allowance of polygamy, or any other crime, as a tenet of its faith, I should say that no person subscribing to such a provision, or practicing under it, should have any portion of the public domain, and that it would clearly be the duty of Congress so to de- clare.
Mr. BOYCE. If there is no objection, I will withdraw my amendment.
No objection being made, the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. WALBRIDGE. I move to amend the proviso under consideration, so that it shall read:
Jlnd provided further, That neither the benefits of this or of any other act donating public lands, shall extend to any person who shall now, or at any time hereafter, be the husband of more than one wife.
When I rose to address the Chair, I stated that the views expressed by the gentleman from North Carolina were, that if we pass this restriction, the Mormons will pass out of Utah, and spread all over the vast valley of the interior of this conti- nent. The amendment which I now propose reaches that objection. I do not propose here to discuss the constitutional question. I touch the moral question only. If this Congress, acting as the donors of this land, has the right to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they shall be given, it has the right to prescribe the condi- tion that no individual who indulges in polygamy shall be entitled to the benefits of this act. [ f he prefers polygamy, he can leave the Union.
Mr. PECKHAM.. If he prefers more than one woman.
Mr. WALBRIDGE. As my friend from New York says, if he prefers more than one woman he may leave the land. If we prescribe conditions, we must make them consistent with the laws of the land. If a single member of this House should take to himself more than one wife, he not only subjects himself to the frowns of the community, but to the penalties prescribed by the law; and he suffers for his crime in the penitentiary.
Do you ask, then, that these people shall have the benefits of this law? That your lands shall not be withheld from people guilty of this crime?
Mr. KEITT. Will the gentleman from New York allow me to ask him a single question ? If it be unconstitutional to legislate upon the sub- ject of polygamy itself, is it not unconstitutional, in donating the public lands, to impose a restric- tion which indirectly effects the same thing?
Mr. WALBRIDGE. I stated, at the outset of my remarks, that in what I should now say upon this subject I should waive the constitutional question entirely. I do not propose to say whether it is constitutional or not. I am viewing this as a great moral question; and I say that it is the right and duty of Congress, in making donations of the public lands, to impose such limitations and restrictions as they may think proper, such as would be made in the States.
Such a restriction would not be necessary in the State of South Carolina, because the State itself has made the restriction, by forbidding polygamy.
But wherever polygamy exists, the line is dis- inctly drawn; and I submit that Congress have the right, and that it is their duty, in making do- nations, to impose restrictions in reference to it I therefore insist, as I said yesterday, upon retain- ing this proviso as a moral question, and leave the constitutional question for others to discuss
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, when in order, I propose to offer, as an amendment, that the benefits of the bill shall not be extended to any one guilty of murder, arson, piracy, or robbery.
The objection which I originally urged against the proviso of the bill, it seems to me, has not been answered. It is true, sir, that I have not thought it necessary frequently to obtrude myself upon the House in answer to the several gentle- men who have taken the other side; but my col- league [ Mr. COBB] has no right to conclude from my silence, under these circumstances, that I have " backed out"— I believe that was his expression. Sir, when I have nothing to say which can throw additional light upon the subject under considera- tion, silence appears to me most becoming; and in the most friendly spirit, I suggest the propriety of this course to the grave consideration of my colleague.
The proviso excludes from the benefit of the bill all persons who have more than one wife. Why ? Because it is said polygamy is a crime. Then the exclusion operates by way of penalty, and is intended to operate by way of discouraging crime. This, then, as I understand it, is the assertion of a collateral or incidental jurisdiction over the morals of the people of the country, which is inconsistent with the theory of our lim- ited Federal Constitution.
Our only jurisdiction over crimes is to be found in those clauses of the Constitution which author- ize Congress to " provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States." To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and of- fenses against the law of nations, " and to declare the punishment of treason."
In addition to this, then, there is a criminal ju- risdiction arising out of that clause authorizing Congress to make all laws which may be neces- sary and proper for carrying into execution the powers conferred by the Constitution. And, sir, even as to these crimes, the mode of punishment is prescribed by the Constitution. The common law rules being preserved in all cases of accusation
Has Congress the right to say that no man who is a polygamist shall be permitted to purchase the public lands, or be entitled to a preiimptor's right of settlement, or what is the same thing, to share in those grants made in the exercise of the power contained in the Constitution, authorizing " rules and regulations" for the disposal of the public lands ?
If, through the exercise of the power " to dis- pose of" the public lands, Congress is to take this incidental control over this particular crime, why not over every other? And if in this mode, why not in every other mode of disposing of the Territory ? Why not extend the proviso so as to exclude from the benefit of the act all persons who are guilty of murder, arson, piracy, forgery, and, I might add, theft of slaves, if I werenotaf'raid of shocking the sensibilities of some gentlemen, and thus bring the influence of the Government to bear upon the whole dark catalogue of crime?
Sir, these considerations are not answered by sophomoric declamation as to the heinousness of the offense. That, sir, is not the question, but whether we shall, for the first time in the history of our legislation, link into our acts the discour- agement or punishment of crimes which are ap- propriately referred to the local Legislatures.
If Congress possesses any power, acting as the Legislature of this Territory, then let them exert it in a direct manner, by virtue of that power, and we could then meet the question fairly when it is presented; but let us not smuggle into this bill a jurisdiction not warranted by the clause of the Constitution under which it is framed.
The question was taken on the amendment to the amendment; and it was rejected.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Ohio. I move to substitute for the words " provisions of this act," in the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, the words " donations of land made by this act."
Mr. Chairman, I had no desire to participate in this discussion, but simply to vote for the proviso as it has been amended; but I cannot pass with silence some of the remarks thrown out in the debate by gentlemen who are in favor of striking out this proviso. It seems to me they go aside from the fact, that by the bill to organize the Ter- ritory of Utah, which passed September, 1850, all the laws of that Territory passed by the Legis- lative Assembly and Governor are to be submitted to the Congress of the United States; and that, if disapproved, they are to be null and of no effect. I have the law before me.
Now, is it a fact that there are laws in Utah which establish the crime of polygamy, as asserted by gentlemen ? My friend and colleague over the way, [ Mr. DISNEY,] referred this morning to a law which he said countenanced, or established polygamy in that Territory. I had no opportunity to examine it. My friend from Alabama [ Mr. PHILLIPS] said that we might as well insert a pro- vision here to exclude any man guilty of murder, perjury, or any other crime. I understand that the Territorial Legislature of Utah denounce those crimes, and hold them to be crimes as they do in the States of this Union, whereas they tolerate the other crime, that of polygamy.
And here we have a beautiful specimen of this squatter sovereignty, so ably advocated by gen- tlemen in Congress; the leaving of the Territories to do as they please; the Territorial Legislatures to do what they please; establish any crime they choose. Whether we approve or not, we are to pass the laws unnoticed.
If I had the time, I would read from the law organizing the Territory of Utah, a law for which I take this occasion to say I did not vote. I felt indisposed to give the people of Utah, whom I conceived at that time to be a set of strolling squatters, who had seized the public land, and de- fied the authority of the United States. I waa indisposed to give the people of that Territory, a territory twelve times as large, I am told, as that of New York, the power to set up and justify a crime in defiance of the Congress bf the United States.
Mr. BOYCE. I am opposed to this wholesale legislation against a whole community. It reminds me of our revolutionary struggle. Sir, I well recollect what Burke said, when Lord North and his sovereign majority attempted to indict a whole province. He said, " I do not know how to draw up an indictment against a whole nation." And so with me. I do not know how to draw up an indictment against this whole people. I am for letting them alone.
It seems to me that this proviso is at war with that provision of the Constitution, which says that no man shall be bound to answer for any criminal offense unless upon the presentment of a grand jury. Here you require this whole people to an- swer for a criminal offense, and on what present- ment? The presentment of the Congress of the United States. Is that in consonance with the Constitution? Again: Every man has a right to a trial by jury when he is charged with crime. Do you give the people of Utah this right? No, you do not. To whom do you give the power to decide this question ? You give it to this surveyor general.
When a Mormon applies for a tract of land under the provisions of this bill, the surveyor general will say to him, " You shall not have it." " Why ?" " Because you have more wives than one." Who is to decide that question? This surveyor general. He is to decide whether the man has been guilty of this crime or not. Is that consistent with the Constitution ? However good our motives may be, let us not trample the Con- stitution and this great provision of liberty under- foot. Sir, these people are entitled to our sym- pathy and pity. Look at their history.
It is a history of misfortune and persecution, of disaster and suffering. They have never been able to live in peace in any community. They were driven from Missouriand from Illinois. Their beautiful city of Nauvoo was devastated, and they were compelled, with bleeding hearts, to bid adieu to the graves of their people and to their beautiful temple. Their prophet was taken and placed in jail in Carthage, and while there, was brutally murdered by assassins. They were then driven into the wilderness. They went up on the western side of Iowa, and there at mid- winter, whilst they were in the midst of suffering, the United States called upon them to go and fight the battles of the country. And how did they respond to thatcall? They responded to it better than the people of many parts of the United States. They sent almost their whole military force; and that people rallied around the star- spangled banner, and went out to fight the battles of our country. And yet you will not now permit those men to enjoy a home in that wilderness which they have rescued from barbarism and from the Indians.
The question was then taken on Mr. TAYLOR'S amendment; and it was rejected.
Mr. RICHARDSON obtained the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair being unwill- ing to call gentlemen to order in debate, has, per- haps, permitted the rule to be violated to some extent; but in the further debate upon this bill he will attempt rigidly to enforce the rule.
Mr. COBB, I am very sorry the Chair is only
, o adopt that course now. My colleague PHILLIPS] has been heard, and I want an
.- ortunity to reply.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ala- bama is out of order.
The discussion was further continued touching the constitutional power of Congress, directly or indirectly, to arrest polygamy in the Territory of Utah. The committee then rose, and the House adjourned. Mr. BERNHISEL. I move to amend the third section by striking out all after the word " citizen," in the eighteenth line, being the last proviso.
Mr. HAVEN. I hope the committee will adopt the amendment of the Delegate from Utah, [ Mr. BERNHISEL.] One reason is, that I do not desire, by any legislation which we may enact here, to recognize any such institution as that in Utah.
Mr. LETCHER. I think it would be as well to leave this matter alone; but the only objection I have to it is, that the committee did not apply the same sort of provision to gentlemen who are to get $ 3,000 a year out there in the way of sala- ries. 1 cannot understand why a section of the bill was reported authorizing: a salary of $ 3,000 to be paid to men who had half a dozen wives without any restriction whatever, and why this third section should be reported with a restriction confined to settlers alone. My object in rising was to ascertain from the chairman of the Com- mittee on Public Lands the reason for this dis- crimination, why the settler should be punished for having; more wives than one, while office- holders, who are in the receipt of large salaries, • not only have the benefit of money, but of the women to boot. [ Laughter.]
Mr. DAVIS, of Rhode Island. 1 do not see that this discrimination is any worse than that of inserting the word " white" in these territorial bills. I do not see that it is legislating in favor of any worse institution than we have already pre- pared to establish by making this other discrim- ination in favor of white citizens alone. I do not know that it is any worse than legislating in favor of an institution which knows nothing of mar- riage between a large class of people, which does not even regulate the institution of marriage in any form whatever. And yet, with all the defects of Utah, they have some regulation as to the rela- tion of man and woman. And it seems to me, as far as I can discover, that the institution of the South is calculated to denationalize our Territo- ries, and to prepare them to introduce a system of promiscuous concubinage, so far as one portion of the community is concerned, and to give one portion of the community full power and control over another portion of the community.
I do not particularly object to this amendment, unless the other amendment is also carried; and I see no good policy in making such a distinction as this I would as lief have Utah come into this Union with their defective institutions as to have a slave State come into it. 1 do not think that there is more evil in the one than there is in the other; but I am opposed to the admission of either without conformity to the general and well set- tled principles of the moral laws, as they are known and understood by every reasonable man.
Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I only take occasion to remark, that nothing sur- prises me more than to hear gentlemen who never were in a slave State, perhaps, in their lives, dis- course ex cathedra on the character of our institu- tions. Now, the gentleman from Rhode Island .[ Mr. DAVIS] speaks upon this subject as though a - common indiscriminate intercourse of the sexes existed among a portion of the population of the southern States. But I would have that member to know that the tie of marriage is, in many re- spects, to a very large extent, as sacredly ob- served among the negroes of the South as it is among the people from whom he comes. And I do not hesitate to say that the crime of inconti- nence is as rare in the southern States as it is in the great State of Rhode Island. If, however, the gentleman from that State is prepared, in con- nection with this subject, to get up and justify the institution of Mormonism— an institution which authorizes a man to have as many wives as he can maintain— if, I say, he is prepared to . maintain such an institution as that, on so poor a
Eretext, let him go homo and justify himself to is constituency. I hope, sir, the provision will not be striken out. I now yield to the gentleman . from Alabama, [ Mr. COBB.]
Mr. COBB. The honorable gentleman from Virginia [ Mr. LETCHER] propounded a question to the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands. As he has not answered that interroga- tory, I will do it for him. The honorable gentle- man, the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, did not, perhaps, have the opportunity of knowing the circumstances attending the intro- duction of this provision into the bill. He was not present at the meeting of the committee when that provision was discussed and resolved on. But I can give an answer for myself to the ques- tion proposed by the gentleman from Virginia.
Sir, I advocated that provision before the com- mittee, and I shall advocate it here,' believing that it is right. I believe that this Government, when they propose to grant donations without any par- ticular consideration, should— and it is their prov- ince to— discriminate and encourage that class for whose peculiar advantage these donations are intended.
Mr. LETCHER. That is not the point of my question.
Mr. COBB. I am coming to the other point in a moment. The gentleman from Virginia speaks of giving large salaries to persons occupying the position which I understand the Governor of Utah does. Now, without intending any disrespect even to the Delegate from that Territory, I will say that I am myself opposed to the principle of encouraging these individuals by giving them large salaries. And so far as njy own action is concerned, I am opposed to increasing their sala- ries. And when the time comes, the gentleman from Virginia will find that my opposition is real and sincere.
As I have been the zealous advocate from the first of ingrafting on the bill the provision now proposed to be stricken out, I desire to propound a few questions to the Delegate from Utah, which, if he answers to my satisfaction, I may, perhaps, and in all probability will, vote for striking out the provision to which he objects.
Mr. LETCHER. The gentleman will allow me to interrupt him a moment.
Mr. COBB. But I want to propound a ques- tion to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. LETCHER. Exactly; but as my friend from Alabama has not got exactly to the right point, I want to bring him to it before he under- takes to catechise the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. COBB. I do not want to catechise the gentleman. 1 wish only to propound a question or two.
Mr. LETCHER. I wish to know, while you will vote for this restriction to the third section pf this bill, why you did not put the like restriction upon the first section, which relates to the salaries of officers, & c. ?
Mr. COBB. Permit me to say to the gentleman that my vote, when I come to vote upon the bill, will answer his question.
But I wish to put a few questions now to the Delegate from Utah, [ Mr. BERNHISEL.] I may have been too rigid in the principles which I have been accustomed to entertain, and I desire to propound a few questions to the Delegate from that Territory, with a view to correct my own judgment, if it should appear to be wrong.
AA I have been upon former occasions, so I am now, disposed to do what 1 believe to be right; and if I have formed an incorrect idea of the prac- tices which exist in Utah, and of the actions of individuals there, 1 may be doing great injustice to them by advocating the retention of this pro- viso in the bill. I will accordingly ask the gen- tleman from Utah whether this proviso, which limits the benefits of this act to persons who have now, or hereafter have, only one wife, will, in his opinion, work any very considerable injustice or hardship to any considerable number of the inhab- itants of the Territory of Utah ?
I do not desire to do any great injustice to any set of people, or to any individuals; and if the gentleman, the Delegate from Utah, will tell me that the proviso will work any great hardship to a considerable number of individuals in the Ter- ritory which he represents, I may perhaps change my mind and views upon this question. Until I am satisfied upon that point, I must insist, so far as my vote is concerned, upon the retention of the proviso in this bill.
It is a most wholesome proviso, and one which the Government ought to see carried out. The principle that an individual should have only one wife is a good one, and should be supported. I hope the proviso will not be stricken out.
Mr. BERNHISEL. In answer to the ques- tion of the gentleman from Alabama, I will state I that the proviso will work injury to a very con- siderable number of the inhabitants of the Terri- tory of Utah. The more wives a man has, the more farms he needs to support them. [ Laughter.] Mr. COBB. That is all I wanted to know, and I am glad to hear the response of the gentleman.
Mr. GIDDINGS. If there is any one feature of legislation which should be adhered to by statesmen, it is that of dealing out the same meas- ure of justice to all who are affected by their legislation. Now, sir, for weeks and months, 1 have sat here and heard gentlemen denounce all attempts to interfere with the domestic institu- tions of our Territories. From the commence- ment of the discussion upon the Nebraska ques tion to this day, scarcely a southern man has spoken who has not sneered at, condemned, and repudiated all attempts " to interfere with the domes- tie institutions of our Territories." They are now in favor of interfering with the domestic institu- tion of marriage in Utah, among the Mormons
Now, sir, I do not understand this practice- of facing to the " right and left," and to the " right about" and " left about" at the bidding of some drill sergeant. How long are we to sit here and see gentlemen assume one position to- day and another to- morrow? When will gentlemen upon this floor learn that the people of this great nation expect something like consistency of action on the part of their statesmen ?
I am earnest upon this subject. I am myself in favor of this proviso, taken as an independent proposition. It is in favor of morality, of pro- priety, of decency, and good order. But I never will go for it while we legislate for slavery in our Territories, and the admission of slave States, and permit the inhabitants of Nebraska to make such regulations in regard to their domestic institutions, including slavery and unlimited concubinage. 1 would deal out to the Mormon the same measure of justice and freedom that I would give to the citizens of Nebraska, with their hundreds of con- cubines. I will permit the Mormon to enjoy his dozen wives, and I believe I could do it with a great deal better conscience than I could give the slaveholder the privilege of an unlimited number of concubines.
Now, sir, when the Mormon marries, he does it openly before the public. The act is lawfully registered; and, when it has taken place, the wo- man assumes and takes the same standing in so- ciety and in the community as her husband. He recognizes her as his lawful partner. His children are legitimate. They are educated;" they are taught to understand the laws of the country, and its Constitution. They become enlightened and intelligent, and may become useful members of the community.
Sir, the Mormon does not sell his wife, nor does he sell his children. No, sir. God forbid. The Mormon recognizes his child as entitled to his care, to his attention, to his protection, to the privileges of education. He does not sell his own offspring to a slave dealer. No, sir; no, sir. The gentleman over the way, from Virginia, [ Mr. SMITH,] says that negroes in the South are entitled to marriage. Why, sir, am I to stand here atthis day and proclaim that there is no such institution as legal marriage among three millions of slaves in the United States ? A fact of which we all are con- scious. Is it not true that the gentleman who has made the declaration, would sell the wife of his slave to- morrow, if he could get his price for her? Or, that he would do worse, perhaps ? That there is no law in Virginia to protect that female from the outrages of a brutal owner.
Are we to sit here, month after month, and hear discussions in favor of promiscuous, unlimited concubinage in the South, and then turn round and pass laws limiting the Mormons in Utah in respect to marriage?
Mr. Chairman, if you will adopt a rule I will follow it. I would deal out the same measure of justice to the Mormons that I would give to those of Nebraska. I would exclude slavery and polyg- amy from both, and from all Territories.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I do not rise to reply to any- thing which has fallen from thegentleman from Ohio [ Mr. GIDDINGS] who has just taken his seat, fori could not, nor could any man who knew what was due to himself, or what was due to the respecta- bility of the House of which he is a member, trust himself to reply to such language as has fallen from that gentleman. I leave him to his own con- science, and to the reprobation of his constitu- ents; and if neither of them can serve as a moni- tor, I shall not undertake to correct or counsel him. I have no further