THE POLAND ACT Prosecution for
the murders at Mountain Meadows became possible only when, in 1874,
Congress passed the Poland Act. The Act sought to eliminate the
nearly total control the Mormon Church had over Utah's justice
system. The Poland Act redefined the jurisdiction of Utah courts,
restricting the formerly powerful probate courts, which had taken no
action concerning the 1857 massacre, to their traditional
jurisdiction. The Act also eliminated the territorial marshal and
attorney, giving their duties to a U. S. marshal and U. S.
attorney. Finally, the Act opened up Utah juries to
non-Mormons. The first grand
jury called under the new law, in September 1874, indicted Lee, Dame,
Haight, Higbee, Klingensmith, Stewart, and three other men for the
deaths of members of the Fancher Party at Mountain Meadows in 1857. Each Utah county had a probate court presided over by an elected judge. No federal circuit court was ever established in Utah or with jurisdiction over Utah. Many litigants, especially Mormons, took their cases to the probate court rather than before the federally appointed judge of the district court. The effect was to displace the federally appointed courts with a system of local control. Congress reacted by placing the judiciary firmly under federal control. The Poland Act of 1874 (18 Stat. 253) restricted the probate courts to matters of estates and guardianship, removing all civil, chancery, and criminal jurisdiction. It gave the district courts exclusive jurisdiction for all suits over $300, and it abolished the local offices of the territorial marshal and territorial attorney. Text of the Poland Act, as proposed: Mr.
The bill, as proposed to be amended,
was read, as follows: Be it
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall
be "the duty of the United States
marshal of the Territory of Utah, in person or by deputy, to attend all
sessions of the supreme and district courts in said Territory, and to
serve and
execute all process and writs issued out of, and all orders, judgments,
and
decrees made by said courts, or by any judge thereof, unless said court
or
judge shall otherwise order in any particular case. All process, writs,
or
other papers left with said marshal, or either of his deputies, shall
be.
served without delay, and in the order in which they are received, upon
payment
or tender of his legal fees therefore; and it shall be unlawful for
said marshal to demand
or receive mileage for any greater distance than the actual distance by
the
usual routes from the place of service or execution of process, writ,
or other
paper, to the place of return of the same, except that when it shall be
necessary to convey any person arrested by legal authority out of the
county in
which he is arrested, said marshal shall be entitled to mileage for the
whole
distance necessarily traveled in delivering the person so arrested
before the
court or officer ordering such arrest. Said marshal is hereby
authorized to
appoint as many deputies as may be necessary, each of whom shall have
authority,
in the name of said marshal, to perform any act with like effect and in
like manner
as said marshal; and the marshal shall be liable for all official acts
of such deputies as if
done by himself. Such appointment shall not be complete until he shall
give bond
to said marshal, with sureties, to be by him, approved, in the penal
sum of $10,000, conditioned for the faithful discharge
of his duties; and he
shall also take, and subscribe the same oath
prescribed by law to be taken by said marshal; and said appointment, bond, and
oath shall be filed and remain in the office of the clerk of the
supreme court
of said territory. In. actions brought against said marshal for the
misfeasance
or non-fiancé of any deputy. It shall be lawful for the
plaintiff, at his option,
to join the said deputy and the sureties on his bond with said marshal
and his
sureties. Any
processes, either civil or .criminal, returnable
to the supreme or district courts may be served in any county by the
sheriff
thereof or his legal deputy, and they
may also serve any other processes which may be authorized by act of
the
territorial Legislature.
SEC. 2. That it shall be the duty of
the United States attorney in said Territory, in person or by an
assistant, to attend
all the courts of record having jurisdiction of offenses as well under
the laws
of said Territory as of the United States, and perform the duties of
prosecuting officer in all criminal cases arising in said courts; and
be is
hereby authorized to appoint as many assistants as may be necessary,
each of
whom shall subscribe the same oath as is prescribed by law for said
United
States attorney; and the said appointment and oath shall be filed and
remain
the office of the clerk of the supreme court of said Territory. The
SEC. 3. That there shall
be held in each year two terms of the supreme court of said Territory,
and four
terms of each district court, at such times as the governor of the
Territory
may by Proclamation fix. The district courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction
in all suits or proceedings in chancery, and in all actions at law in
which the
sum or value of the thing in controversy shall be $300 or upward, and
in all
controversies where the title, possession, or boundaries of land, or
mines or
mining claims shall be in dispute, whatever their value, except in
actions for
forcible entry or forcible
or unlawful detainer; and they shall have
jurisdiction in suits for divorce. When a bill is filed by a woman to
declare
marriage or pretended marriage void, on account of a previous
subsisting
marriage of the defendant to another woman, the court, or judge thereof
may
grant such reasonable sum for alimony and counsel fees as the
circumstances of
the case will justify; and may likewise, by final decree, make such
allowance
for the maintenance of the complainant and her children by the
defendant as may
be just and reasonable. .And whenever,
in any proceeding for divorce, or in any civil cause, or in any
criminal
prosecution, it is necessary to prove the existence of the marriage
relation
between two persons, it shall not be necessary to prove the same by the
production of any record or certificate of the marriage, but evidence
of
cohabitation between the parties as husband and wife, and the acts,
conduct, declarations,
and admissions of the parties shall be admissible, and the marriage may
be
established like any question of fact. Probate
courts, in their respective counties,
shall have jurisdiction in the settlement of the estates of decedents,
and in
matters of guardianship and other like matters; but otherwise they
shall have
no civil, chancery, or criminal jurisdiction whatever; they shall have
jurisdiction
of suits of divorce for statutory causes concurrently with the district
courts;
but any defendant in a suit for divorce, commenced in a probate court
shall be
entitled, after appearance and before plea or answer, to have said snit
removed
to the district court having jurisdiction, when said suit shall proceed
in like
manner as if originally commenced in said district court. All judgments
and
decrees heretofore rendered by the probate courts which have been
executed, and
the time to appeal from which has by the existing laws of said
Territory
expired, are hereby validated and confirmed. The jurisdiction
heretofore
conferred upon justices of the peace by the organic act of said
Territory is
extended to all cases where the debt or sum claimed shall be
less· than $300. From
all final judgments of justices of the peace an appeal shall be allowed
to the
district courts of their respective districts, in the same manner as is
now provided
by the laws of said Territory for appeals to the probate courts; and
from the
judgments of the probate courts an appeal shall lie to the district
court of
the district embracing the county in which such probate court is held
in such
cases and in such manner as the, supreme court of said Territory may;
by
general rules framed for that purpose, specify and designate, and such
appeal
shall vacate the judgment appealed from, and the case shall be tried de
novo in the appellate court. Appeals
may be taken from both justices and
probate courts to the district court of their respective districts in
cases
where judgments have been heretofore rendered and remain unexecuted;
but this provision
shall not enlarge the time for taking an appeal beyond the periods now
allowed
by the existing laws of said Territory for taking appeals. Whenever the
condition of the business in the district court of any district is such
that
the judge of the district is unable to do the same, he may request the
judge of
either of the other districts to assist him, and, upon such request
made; the
judge so requested may hold the whole or part of any term, or any
branch
thereof, and his acts as such judge shall be of equal force as if he
were duly
assigned to hold the courts in such district.
SEC. 4. That within sixty days after the
passage of this
act, and in the month of January annually thereafter, the clerk of the
district
court in each judicial district, and the judge of probate of the county
in
which the district court is next to be held, shall prepare a jury-list
from
which grand and petit jurors shall be drawn, to serve in the district
courts of
such district, until a new list shall be made us herein provided. Said
clerk
and probate judge shall alternately select the name of a male citizen
of the
United States who has resided in the district for the period of six
months next
preceding, and who can read and write in the English language; and as
selected,
the name and residence of each shall be entered upon the list, until
the same
shall contain two hundred names, when the same shall be duly certified
by such
clerk and probate judge; and the same shall be filed in the office of
the clerk
of such district court, and a duplicate copy shall be made and
certified by
such officers, and filed in the office of said probate judge. Whenever
a grand
or petit jury is to be drawn to serve at any term of a district court,
the
judge of such district shall give public notice of the time and place
of the
drawing of such jury, which shall be at least twelve days before
commencement
of such term; and on the day and at the place thus fixed, the judge of
such
district shall hold an open session of his court , and shall preside at
the
drawing of such jury; and the clerk of such court shall write the name
of each
person on the jury-lists returned and filled in his office upon a
separate slip
of paper, as nearly as practicable of the same size and form, and all
such
slips shall, by the clerk in open court, be placed in a covered box,
and thoroughly
mixed and mingled; and thereupon the United States marshal, or his
deputy,
shall proceed to fairly draw by lot from said box such number of names
as may
have previously been directed by said judge; and if both a grand and a petit jury
are to be drawn, the grand jury shall be drawn first; and when the
drawing
shall have been Concluded, the clerk of the district court shall issue
a venire to the marshal or his deputy,
directing him
to summon the persons so drawn, and the same shall be duly served on
each of
the persons so drawn at least seven days before the commencement of the
term at
which they are to serve; and the jurors so drawn and summoned shall
constitute
the regular grand and petit juries for the term for all cases. And the
names
thus drawn from the box by the clerk shall not be returned to or again
placed
in said box until a new jury-list shall be made. If during any term or
the
district court any additional grand or petit jurors shall be necessary,
the
same shall be drawn from said box by the
SEC. 5. That there shall be appointed
by the governor of said Territory one or more notaries public for each
organized county, whose term of office shall be two years and until
their
successors shall be appointed and qualified . The act of the
Legislative Assembly
of the Territory of Utah entitled "An act concerning notaries
public," approved January, 17, 1866, is hereby approved, except the first section thereof, which is hereby
disapproved: Provided, That wherever
in said act the words “probate judge" or "clerk of the probate
court" are used, the words “secretary of the Territory" shall be
substituted.
SEC. 6. That the supreme court of said
Territory is hereby authorized to appoint commissioners of said court,
who
shall have and exercise all the duties of commissioners of the
circuit courts
of the United States, and to take acknowledgments of bail, &c.;
and, in addition,
they shall have the same authority as examining and committing
magistrates in
all cases arising under the laws of said Territory as is now possessed
by justices of the peace in said
Territory.
SEC. 7. That the common law of
England, as the same is defined and modified by the courts of last
resort in
those States of the United States where the common law prevails, shall
be the
rule of decision in all the courts of said Territory so far as it is
not repugnant
to or inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States
and the
existing statutes of Raid territory.
SEC. 8 . That the act of the
territorial Legislature of the Mr. Speaker,
I shall take but a very few moments in explaining this bill. I should be
very glad to give more time and have a more extended discussion of it
than the
condition of business in the House will at this time allow.
The bill that has been presented by
the Judiciary Committee is mainly remarkable
for its moderation when compared with previous bills that have
been before the House upon this vexed subject of the
Since the
building of the Pacific Railroad and since the discovery of mines in
Mr. CROUNSE. Will the gentleman allow
me a single remark?
Mr.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the object of this
bill is to stop this proceeding, and to put the legal machinery in
motion in
that Territory: That is the whole scope and purpose of the bill; and as
I have
but a few moments, I will call attention briefly to US provisions.
It provides in the first section for the exercise of the duties and
powers of
the
The second section of the bill
provides for the performance of duty by the United States district,
attorney,
who is authorized to appoint assistants for that purpose; but to this
also we
have added, as in the first section, a provision that the territorial
Legislature may provide for the appointment of a prosecuting attorney
in every
county who may prosecute for all offenses under the laws of the
Territory; and
if any of those cases go by appeal, or otherwise, into the district
court, this
local attorney may be associated in the prosecution of those cases in
that
court.
The third section relates to the
respective jurisdictions of the courts and giving jurisdiction to the
district
courts which are held by the judges appointed by the President, and
taking away
the jurisdiction of the probate courts; that is, confining the
jurisdiction of
these probate courts to the proper business of the settlement of
estates.
And I think the gentleman who sits
here as Delegate of that Territory knows as well as I know the Supreme
Court
have agreed upon a decision, and it was only deferred in consequence of
the
pendency of this bill, wherein they have decided the territorial
Legislature
had no authority to confer this kind of jurisdiction which these
probate courts
have heretofore exercised ; that the conferring of general, legal,
civil, and
criminal jurisdiction upon the courts was a usurpation and their acts
are void
.. We provide in this bill for taking away that jurisdiction from these
probate
courts, but at the same time we have taken care to validate the
proceedings
which have become executed.
The fourth section, Mr. Speaker,
provides for the selection of jurors, and upon this we
have had great difficulty, the
bill, as originally
reported from the
committee, contains the provision offered by the gentleman from
We have then provided that the drawing
of the jurors shall be in open court; shall be public, so everybody
may have an opportunity to see it is fairly done. The majority of the
Judiciary
Committee thought this provision was one nobody could complain
of·one which
would be entirely fair to all parties.
But, in addition to that, we have it provision
that in any prosecution under the law of Congress .against polygamy,
the fact
of a person's practicing polygamy or believing in the rightfulness of
it should
be good cause of challenge to his sitting on a jury to try that sort of
offense…
Mr. CROUNSE. Mr. Speaker, as a member
of the Committee on the Territories I have had some opportunity to
consider the
questions involved in this bill, and I did hope that the opportunity
would
present itself when I might present to the House some of the
considerations
which are here involved and which relate to the details of this bill.
In the
consideration of a question so important as this the House cannot
afford to be
swayed or governed by passion or prejudice. Standing up here in defense
of what
I believe to be a proper system of law for the government of this
Territory, I
wish .to disclaim in advance any disposition to defend the system of
polygamy.
I am not here for that purpose, but I am here to join hands with all
who wish
to put down this system by proper and legitimate means.
Sir, we should not confound this
question of polygamy with the question of framing a proper system of
laws to
govern the
Upon this question in relation to the
government of the
Mr.
Mr. CROUNSE. I accept the apology, but
the facts are there and the inference can be drawn. When I wanted to
make an
inquiry and to correct a misstatement, at that time the gentleman could
not
tolerate a question; no, sir; not a bit of it. But when others
propounded
inquiries, then there was opportunity, and a disposition to allow them
to do
so.
Now, in order to make this bill
palatable to the House, if I may use the term, it must be prefaced with
some
imaginary grievances, or the statement of a condition of affairs which
really
does not exist. It becomes necessary to refer away back to the early
history of
this people, when they were isolated, away off, and when they had
imposed and
inflicted upon them
The gentleman says that while the
Now, that they have a right to do. If
that is denied them, then one of the first principles of a republican
system of
government is gone and wiped out. When a people in a Territory cannot
be
accorded the right to enact their own laws, those that relate to
themselves, as
long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United
States, and if
they cannot select .their own offices to execute those laws, then I say
you are
striking down the very first principles of American liberty. You are
taxing men
without representation, you are demanding obedience to laws which they
have no
voice in making, and you foist upon them officers to execute the laws
under no
responsibility to the people governed. It is a proposition unheard
of-in the
history of American law-making of jurisprudence…. I tell you, Sir, it
will not
do for this Congress to assume a, mock regard for particular laws while
unmindful of others. Let every man turn his sight inward; let him stand
before
the forum of his own conscience; let him ask himself whether he has any
religious convictions at all. Men who have none at all are perhaps too
apt to
be intolerant toward those who have. I say that while I deplore the
system
prevailing in
As I wish to be sparing of the time of
the gentleman from
Mr. ELDREDGE. The gentleman will allow
me to suggest to him that the marshals selected by the local authorities of
Mr. CROUNSE. Precisely That is what I
wish to have understood by the House; that we are asked to enact a law
which is
in defiance of all precedents in our legislation, and for no sufficient
reason;
because the system of polygamy, if it is to be assailed at all, is to
be
assailed under the laws of the United States. Congress should not, and
I say
cannot in consistency with the principles underlying our institutions,
enact
laws which will thrust upon that people a set of Government officials
responsible to no one except the Government here at Washington.
I say that this people does not
deserve such treatment. Aside from the question of their religion they
are
entitled to the same rights, immunities, and privileges which would be
claimed
in behalf of any other people. The bill as first brought before the
Judiciary
Committee contained .the clause
my colleague on the committee from
Mr.
McKEE.
How
are they selected now in other States and Territories?
Mr. POTTER. In most of the States and
Territories by the local officers, I believe; by the sheriffs of the
counties
in very many of the States, and-by the territorial marshals, I believe,
in all
the Territories except
Mr. McKEE. In most of the States they
are selected by the marshal. Do you call that packing a jury?
Mr. POTTER. You are speaking of the
juries of the Federal courts of the States, where there is no such
division
among the people. In the South it may be the marshal can now pack
juries. The
present bill provides, Mr. Speaker, that the juries shall be chosen
one-half by
the judge of probate, that is to say by the county judge or local
authorities,
and the other half by the Federal authority. This
perhaps is as fair under
the circumstances as it is practicable to make a jury for
My difficulty with the existing bill
is this: on page 10
the House will see that it is provided that in all
prosecutions for
adultery, bigamy, or polygamy no person shall be entitled to serve on
the jury
who has a belief in polygamy. As three-fourths of the men who reside in
the
Territory now do believe in polygamy and practice it, the result will
be they
will all be absolutely excluded from the juries in such cases, and the
jury in
all prosecutions for bigamy or polygamy will therefore necessarily be
made up
of persons who are non-Mormons. I do not see why under such a provision
every
Mormon cannot be convicted of polygamy, for undoubtedly they are guilty
under
the Federal statute passed years ago. I do not see, I say, why they all
may not
be, the whole Mormon people, convicted and locked up under this
provision and
the Territory be thus left bare to the non-Mormons to take possession
of and
keep. If I am told that a whole community cannot be punished for
violating a
law, then the answer indicates the needlessness of passing laws which
cannot be
enforced. Many years ago we passed a law against polygamy which we
never have
enforced. Here now is another law which, if it can be enforced, will
have the
effect of driving these people out of the Territory, leaving the lands
to those
there who are non-Mormons, and which we propose to enforce by giving to
the
non-Mormons the control of the juries that may sit upon that question.
If
polygamy could be broken up by mere law it would have been done before
this. At
any rate I shrink from doing it by a method which is not calculated to
insure
that impartial trial by jury which the Constitution guarantees to every
citizen.
I have felt, besides, sir, that it
could not be long in any event before these people would have to move
on; that
the railways coming into the country would introduce into it not only
new
people but new Ideas. In a far-off place like the
Mr. E. R. HOAR. I desire to ask the
gentleman from
Mr. POTTER. The distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts, formerly the Attorney-General of the
United
States, and especially familiar with the laws and statutes of the
United
States, should address this question to the gentleman from Vermont
reporting
this bill, who can answer it better than I can. He must bear in mind,
however,
that -this Territory was originally a part of
I do not, Mr. Speaker,·so much object
to the other provisions of this bill; my main objection is to the
amendment
moved by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and to that provision in the
bill as
reported that in all prosecutions for polygamy no man shall be a juror
who
believes in or practices polygamy. I understand, however, that my
friend from
Mr. CANNON, of
If these be the reasons for this
legislation, then the same reasons exist in favor of similar
legislation for
the Territories of the
They also have probate courts, and in
some instances possessing quite an extensive jurisdiction; sufficiently
extensive to be open to the same objection that is made to the
jurisdiction of
the court in the
One of my objections to the bill under
consideration is that it is local in its application. If there be any
reason
for the enactment of a law like this, the same reason exist in regard
to all
the Territories as well as Utah.
It has been said that in the
To return to the probate courts; was
it wise and proper for the Legislative Assembly of Utah to confer upon
the
probate courts the jurisdiction complained of?
It will be remembered that what is now
the State of
Some of the judges appointed in years
past to the first and second districts never saw the places appointed
for
holding their courts. Recently the judges of these districts have held
courts
regularly in their districts, and the judge of the first district has a
residence in his district, and probably the judge of the second in his
also;
but of this I am not certain. If he has, he is, I believe, the first
judge who
has resided there. The probate courts had therefore of necessity to be
endowed
with extensive jurisdiction or the people would have been compelled, to
punish
crime, to have had recourse to lynch law. But supposing these courts
had been
in regular session; Saint George, a city of two thousand inhabitants,
possessing large agricultural and manufacturing interests, is situated
in the
southern portion of the Territory in the second judicial district, and
one
hundred and twenty miles from Beaver, where the court is held; the
facilities
for traveling would enable a citizen of Saint George to arrive at
Beaver in
about three days. Would it not, under these circumstances, be highly
inconvenient
for him to transact any business in the district court? A citizen of
Boston can
travel to Chicago quicker and cheaper and more comfortably than a
citizen of
Saint George can travel from his home to Beaver; yet the citizen of
Boston
would consider it something of a hardship should he be obliged to
transact all his
business at Chicago, and he would not be considered unreasonable should
he ask
for some
Local tribunal other towns in the
Territory are similarly situated to that of Saint George, and; without
local
courts of some kind they are wholly without
protection by judicial
authority in property or person. Under these circumstances, can it be
said that
the Legislature of Utah acted unwisely in conferring jurisdiction on
the
probate courts? Would they not have fallen far short of their duty had
they
neglected to throw around their infant settlements, so widely
separated, such
protection as the probate courts have afforded?
So far as the administration of
justice in these courts is concerned, I have had forwarded to me from
the
Territory a statement of the cases which have been tried by the
ordinary juries
of the Territory in the probate court of Salt Lake County for several
years.
Out of a list of eighty-four civil cases, to which Mormons and
non-Mormons were
parties, fifty-nine were decided, in favor of non-Mormons and
dissenting
Mormons, and twenty-five only decided in favor of Mormons, showing how
fair the
administration of justice has been in that Territory by juries and the
probate
courts. The parties to sixty-two cases were non-Mormons and dissenting
Mormons;
and yet it is urged as a complaint against these courts that the judges
are
Mormon bishops, &c.
Sir, there is probably no officer in
Sir, I repeat there are no reasons,
unless they be religious, why there should be special legislation of
this
character for
Sir, you doubtless remember that at
the session of the Legislature of Utah held some few months ago a
resolution
was adopted asking Congress to appoint a congressional commission to
visit
Mr. McKEE. May I ask the gentleman if
of those members of the Legislature who signed the petition about the
violation
of the laws all but three are polygamists and living now in violation
of the
law?
Mr. CANNON, of
Mr. McKEE. Is not that
true? I have the list here.
Mr. CANNON, of
Mr. Speaker, who are the men who have
brought this bill to this house and asked for its passage?
Is this the product of the wisdom of the
Committee on the Judiciary? No, sir; this bill is but
one of seven or eight
bills which have been brought to
Since the commencement of this
Congress we have had the
Mr.
Mr. CANNON, of
Mr. POLAND Then he claimed what was
not true.
Mr. CANNON, of
But it may be said, "If these
capitalists and other influential people of
It will be observed also that the
parties who are here urging the passage of this bill are those who are
interested in its success. If this bill should become a law, the office
of the
United States district attorney in Utah would be worth as much as that
of the
President of the United States; the office of marshal of' Utah
Territory would
be equally valuable. What does this bill do? In the first section it
sweeps
away twenty-one sheriffs, and substitutes for them a
With the feeling there is on this
subject and with such a district attorney as we have now, who has shown
what
his designs are, we can readily understand what the fate of the Mormons
would
be if this bill should be made a law, especially when they are not
allowed, if
they even believe in the rightfulness of polygamy, to sit upon a jury,
and when
general reputation is made evidence in criminal prosecutions. Let an
unprejudiced jurist-examine this bill, especially if he has had
experience in
the Territories, and he cannot fail to perceive how dangerous and
subversive of
all republican government it is. I cannot believe that there is a
member of
this House who would vote for such a bill to be enforced against any
other
people than those who reside in
[Here the hammer fell.]
The SPEAKER. The forty-five minutes
allowed to the gentleman from
Mr. CANNON, of It is the
first time that I have appealed to the House for any courtesy of this
kind.
SEVERAL MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr.
The SPEAKER. How much time does the
gentleman from
Mr. CANNON, of
Mr.
The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from
Mr. CANNON, of
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Mr. CANNON, of
It is against this that my
constituents protest. They wish the majority to govern. They govern
elsewhere,
why not in
Sir, it is
but another scheme for robbing that people, and it is hoped it can be
done
under the guise of law. Members should hesitate before they cast their
votes
for such a bill. Examine well what the results of such legislation are
likely
to be. Let members ask themselves how they would like such legislation
enacted
for them if they were objectionable for religion or any other reason.
Put
yourself, sir, in the condition of the Mormons, and ask yourself how
you would
like to have such a law as this passed against you.
It may be said the Mormons are
heretics, but this does not justify Congress in making this bill a law.
Such
legislation never, in the history of the world, put down heresy. If
such
legislation can, then all history belies itself, for history bears
testimony
that no such measure as is proposed in this bill ever was successful in
accomplishing such an object. It did not in the case of the Huguenots;
it did
not in the case of the Puritans; it has not in any case, and it never
will,
never, while the earth stands and human nature possesses its present
features,
unless, indeed, you stamp a religion out by destroying all its
believers.
What is now
Mr. Speaker, there was no talk then
about enacting laws for the
But it is said that the courts are
locked up and cannot execute, the laws because of the difficulty of
obtaining
jurors. Sir, that is no more the case now than it has been for a score
of
years. Under the present laws of
The question as to which is the
rightful officer of the courts under the laws of the Territory—the
United
States district attorney or the attorney-general of the Territory—has
been
submitted to the United States Supreme Court, and the decision has been
in
favor of the officer created by territorial statute. The case of the
United
States Marshal vs. The Territorial Marshal is
an
analogous one. In two instances the Supreme Court of the The theory upon which the
various government for
portions of the territory of the United States have been organized has
ever
been that of leaving to the inhabitants all the powers of
self-government
consistent with the supremacy and supervision of national authority,
and with
certain fundamental principles established by Congress. As early as 1784 an
ordinance was adopted by the Congress of the
Confederation providing for the
division of all the territory ceded or to be ceded into States, with
boundaries
ascertained by the ordinance. These States were severally authorized to
adopt
for their temporary government the constitutional
laws of anyone of the States,
and provision-was made for their ultimate admission by Delegates into
the
Congress of the United States; We thus find the first plan for the
establishment of governments in the Territories authorized the adoption
of
State governments from the start, and committed all matters of internal
legislation to the discretion of the inhabitants, unrestricted
otherwise .than by the
State constitution originally adopted by them. That was
the language used by the Chief Justice in rendering this decision,
which
reversed, the proceedings of the judge of the third judicial district
in the
I find that I must hurry on. In the
short time allowed me I find it impossible to make explanations which
should be
made to give a correct idea of affairs in the Territory. In the third
section
of this bill I find this provision: And whenever, in any
proceeding for divorce, or in
any civil cause, or in any criminal prosecution, it is
necessary to prove the existence of the marriage relation between two
persons,
it shall not be necessary to prove the same by the production of any
record or
certificate of the marriage, but evidence of cohabitation between the
parties
as husband and wife, and the acts, conduct, declarations, and
admissions of the
parties shall be admissible, and the marriage may be established like
any
question of fact. In this
connection I call attention to the decision of the United States
Supreme Court
in the case of Cummings vs. The State of Missouri. It
will
be found in 4 Wallace, and I
will read an extract from pages 325 and 326 By an ex post facto law is
meant one which imposes a punishment for an act which was not
punishable at the
time it was committed, or imposes additional punishment to that then
prescribed, or changes the rules of evidence, by which less or
different
testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required.
This bill proposes to change the rule
of evidence, and I submit it comes in conflict with this decision of
the
Supreme Court in the case I have cited.
Sir, I know the prejudices which exist
on this Mormon question. I know
that many men are ready to do anything that may have the effect to
destroy what
is called Mormonism. I implore members to reflect and not act hastily
upon this
bill. Such legislation will not destroy that system. Its believers have
suffered themselves to be driven from their homes time and time again
for their
religion. They cannot be convinced by the bayonet; they cannot be
convinced by
Mr. WARD, of
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that when
this people, who had been isolated among the vast wildernesses of Utah,
were
reached by the tide of emigration and civilization sweeping across the
continent, and which I hope shall continue to sweep against any form of
despotism, any form of religion or faith that attempts to set itself
against
it—when that people was reached by this tide, of course a conflict
sprang up.
·While those people were there by themselves they needed no
legislation by
Congress, as their representative has said. When our people went out
there, as
they have gone in great numbers, legislation became necessary. The
people who
have gone out from among us are developing the resources of that
country and are
building up there a civilization which we here believe to be better
than that
of the Mormons, notwithstanding the argument which has been made by the
Delegate from Utah in relation to their peculiar faith
The population in that Territory is to-day mixed. About
ninety thousand of the one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and
twenty
thousand people of that Territory are followers of the "prophet" and
this new religion, worshipers of this to me "unknown god;" for the
god that sacrifices women to the lusts of men under the form of a
plurality of
wives is a god that I do not worship. I belong to no particular faith;
I
espouse no particular form of religion; I would not in any way-impose
unnecessary or improper burdens on that people or any other; but when
they
stand up in the light of this age and tell me that their religion is
better
than mine, that their faith is better than mine, that their
civilization is
better than mine, that their institutions are entitled to protection
beyond
what our institutions are entitled to, I say "Hands off; I will not
oppress you, but there must be fair play."
What are the provisions of this bill?
Look at the section which provides for drawing juries. I ask any
fair-minded
man whether he can object to it, except for the reason given by my
colleague on
the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CESSNA,] that it
contains
a degree of sickly sentimentality, a silly dread of touching this
peculiar
institution represented upon this floor by the gentleman from Utah,
rather than
an outspoken, honest disapproval of the practices of his church, with a
provision for forming juries according to the rules now existing and in
force
in almost every State and Territory throughout .this broad land?
What does it provide?
So far from there being any packing of juries against Mormons, it is a
fact—and
I should object to it myself for that reason if I objected to it at
all—it is the fact
that it is almost a packing of juries against ourselves. When I say
"ourselves," I mean those who do not believe in blood atonement; I
mean those who do not believe in the order of Enoch; I mean those who
do not
believe in this Latter-Day nonsense, as I see fit to call it; I mean
those who
do not believe in the sacrifice of one-half of creation to the lusts
and
enormities of the other half. I do not believe in these things myself,
Mr.
Speaker. I fully accord freedom to worship God and freedom of religious
belief;
but I remember in history the enormous crimes which have been
perpetrated in
the name of religion. It was in the name of religion and it is in the
name of
religion that the widow mounts the funeral pyre in
I do not speak to this Delegate from
What does this bill do? It does simply
this and nothing more: It provides that every probate judge in the
Territory of
Utah—although every probate judge there is a Mormon bishop—that each
one of
them shall be appointed as one of the two men who shall draw those who
are to
be put into the jury-box; that each judge in his own county shall be
one of two
commissioners to select the list from which jurors are to be drawn.
Now, gentlemen, away with your
sentimentality, your fearful dread of imposing something unusual upon
these
Mormons. Look at It! I ask gentlemen round about me who are afraid of
some
infraction of the rights of freemen, of the right of trial by jury, of
some
right and some privilege of American citizenship, to look and see if we
do not
give these Mormons every right they can justly claim? But must
they draw the juries and. run the courts and do all this business in
their own
way? That practically is the issue presented to you. I wish that they
like
their neighbors shall follow the ways of civilization. I do not want
you to
oppress them, and this bill does not do it. I do not want to wrong
them, and
you do not by this law. I insist. those who believe as I do—especially
when I
remember there are written in the laws of the country strong statutes
against
the crime of polygamy, especially when I remember the practices of
those whom
this Delegate represents here are such as to shock almost everybody
throughout
this civilized land—I insist my people, our people, the Gentiles of
Utah, shall
have their rights also, and be permitted to be heard in the formation
of juries
and in the administration of the laws.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the few moments
we have to discuss a question of this kind, with such an uneasy
audience as one
usually addresses here, it is mighty hard to say anything when there is
so much
to say. I take it I have made one point at least understood by
gentlemen here.
I trust I have. I might go further, (and I must go a little further,)
and say
if I were to go outside of what actually appears in the record here I
might
tell of the enormities of the wicked practices, the murders, the
outrages
committed in Utah, which would startle everybody.
But let me come back to what this law
does. What are we doing to these people? We provide in trials by jury
the
manner in which the jurors shall be drawn. What next? That the courts
of the
What other thing do we do? We provide
that it shall be just cause for challenge of a juror in a trial for
bigamy or
polygamy if the juror believes in or practices polygamy. Do you allow a
man
anywhere in your courts to sit as a juror in a trial for robbery who
believes
in or practices robbery? Do you allow a man to sit as
a juror in a case of
murder who believes in or practices murder? Do you allow a man to sit
as a
juror in a trial for any crime who believes in or commits that crime?
Would you
allow a man to sit as a juror on the trial of another man charged with
crimes
which the juror practices? Sir, such
a thing has not been heard of until, with unblushing effrontery, this
representative of a deluded people, who worship a strange god, stands
up in the
American Congress and demands that it shall be allowed. Mr. Speaker,
this is
carrying the thing- too far, and we ought to forbid it, and can forbid
it
without any infraction of the rights of American citizens.
I have said almost all I desire to
say, and there are but one or two· other matters to which I
desire to call the
attention of the House. We do not abolish the sheriffs; we do not
abolish the
county courts; we leave the people of the Territory free to regulate
their own
institutions in all local and municipal matters. We do not propose to
interfere
with them in any way. The United States Government has dealt with these
Mormons
·with the utmost leniency and indulgence.
We find a man here to-day representing
these people who has committed the outrage of violating the law of the
land
upon the subject of marriage, who is the husband of more than one wife.
It
seems to be expected by this high priest of the Mormon Church that you
should
recognize the right of his people to commit this crime in the name of
religion.
Sir, when it comes to the doctrine of blood atonement and. human
sacrifice, I
will not for one tolerate such practices in the name of religion. These
people
may believe what they please, and I will believe what I please; but I
insist
that their practices shall be consistent with law and civilization.
This bill in no measure or in any
particular impairs the rights of this peculiar people. Reference has
been made
to the fact that the
Mr.
When you come to compare the
provisions of that bill with the bill which has been reported from the
Committee on the Judiciary at this session and which is now before the
House,
it will hardly be claimed that I should be entitled to the paternity of
both. I
have no special hostility against this peculiar people, the Mormons.
But the
fact is undeniable that these people are as directly hostile to the
Government
of the
Mr. CANNON, of
Mr.
Mr. CANNON, of book since
1862; but it is a
Mr. Everybody
knows that that law has been unblushingly disobeyed, that the people
there have
never pretended to obey it and that they have openly and avowedly
disobeyed it.
And the gentleman says that nobody has been prosecuted. Why not? For
the very
want of such a bill as we propose now to pass. It was because their
territorial
laws were such that no man but a polygamist or one who believed in
polygamy was
ever allowed to enter the jury-box. Every
Mr. CANNON, of
Mr.
Mr. ELDREDGE called for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 159, nays
55, and not voting 75; as follows… COURTS IN Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.
I now move that we proceed to the consideration of the Mr. SPRAGUE. We
have five minutes yet for the Calendar. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.
I have this statement to make- The PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The bill will come up in six minutes without any notice. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.
I have the floor now and I wish to make my statement. The bill as it
will be
presented to the Senate will be free from all objections by anyone who
wants to
have order and law in And now I want
further to say, that if any member of the Senate thinks that the
amendments
which I will propose do not render the bill unobjectionable, I will
accept any
amendments in reference to polygamy and bigamy, so as just to have a
bill which
establishes law in that Territory as in every other, and with those
modifications I think the bill can be passed in ten minutes. I further think
that the progress of time, the influx of gentiles is wearing away that
prejudice, religious or otherwise, on the part of the people of Mr. LOGAN. It, seems
to, be almost impossible to have any legist ion in reference to
questions involving
certain matters connected with the The PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The
Chair thinks it is not in order
to make such references to the other House. Mr. LOGAN. Then I
withdraw
what I said in reference to the House, but I do not in reference to the
polygamist. I appeal to Senators on this floor, I know many of us have
been
reminded during this, session that the republican platform had
something to do
with legislation; I do not think platforms have anything to do with
legislation; but inasmuch as I have been reminded of it, let me remind
Senators
here that time and again you have announced to the world that this
"twin
relic of barbarism" should be extirpated from this country; and yet in
the
last session of Congress, and now, when this bill is brought forward to
give
power to the courts to administer justice in that Territory the same as
it is
elsewhere, in conformity with the law, we find men ready in every
possible way
to thwart legislation for the purpose of allowing the courts to
administer
justice in that Territory. Why is it? Has polygamy
stretched out its arm until it fastens its power on every man in this
Chamber?
Is it true that the head of the Mormon Church has more power in
Congress than
the morals of the whole country? Is it
true that the head of that theocracy, after boasting that he could
control
Congress is able to say to the country that Congress is afraid to deal
with
him? Sir, these are
facts. , The country will ask us why it is that we are afraid to deal
with
polygamy; why we are afraid to give the courts the power to deal with
it; why
we are afraid to legislate in the direction of Mormonism; why we
are afraid of
the power of the head of the Mr. TIPTON: Mr.
President, I don not understand that it is any evidence of cowardice on
the
part of republican members of the Senate that they have not acted
affirmatively
on this question of Utah and her institutions. If
that is to be taken as evidence of cowardice, then I
say that there
is equal evidence of cowardice on another question, not so far as the
Senate is
concerned; but we are told that the honorable Senator, then, how does
it come
that the platform of the party also requires something on the question
of civil
rights, and yet the bill that was passed by the senate has not yet
become a
law, as I understand, while there is power enough in the Congress of
the United
States belonging to that party to make it a law? Mr. LOGAN.
Will the Senator allow me a word tight there? Mr. TIPTON.
Yes, Sir. Mr. LOGAN.
In reference to the platform, I said that I
asked no legislation on account of any platform, but that it was thrown
in the
teeth of certain Senators here that platforms said certain things, and
I only
retorted on that by reference to legislation on this subject. Mr. TIPTON. I
undoubtedly labored under a misapprehension; and as time is so
important I
accept the apology of the Senator from Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.
I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the The motion was
agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the
Whole, proceeded to consider the
bill (H. R. No. 3097) in relation to courts and judicial officers in
the The Committee on
the Judiciary proposed to amend the bill by striking our section 7, in
the
following words: Sec.7. That the
common-law of England, as the same is defined and modified by the
courts of
last resort in those States of the United States where the common law
prevails,
shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of said Territory so
far as it
is not pregnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of
the United
States and the existing statutes of said Territory. Mr.
FRELINGHUYSEN. I offer an amendment to
come
on page 6, in the sixty-third line, after the word “appeals”. Mr. BAYARD.
Is the seventh section stricken out? That
seems to me a most innocent-looking
section. Mr.
FRELINGHUYSEN. I would say to the
Senator from The PRESIDING
OFFICER. (Mr. EDMUNDS in the
chair.) The amendment of the Senator
from The Chief Clerk. On page 6, in line 63, after the word
“appeals”, it is proposed to insert: A writ of error
from the Supreme Court of the The amendment was
agreed to. Mr.
FRELINGHUYSEN. There were a number of
amendments which I proposed to make to this bill that do not go as far
as some
amendments which those who have been opposed to the bill propose to
make, and
therefore I will hear what amendments they desire to make.
Mr. SARGENT.
On page 4, section 3, line 12, I move to
strike out all after the word “divorce” down to and including the whole
of line
28, on page 8. The Chief Clerk
read the words to be stricken out, as follows: When a bill is
filed by a woman to declare a marriage or pretended marriage void, on
account
of a previous subsisting marriage of the defendant to another woman,
the court
or judge thereof may grant such reasonable sum for alimony and counsel
fees as
the circumstances of the case will justify; and may likewise, her
children by
the defendant as may be just and reasonable.
And whenever, in any proceeding for divorce, or in any civil cause, or
in any criminal prosecution, it is necessary to prove the existence of
the
marriage relation between two persons, it shall not be necessary to
prove the
same by the production of any record or certificate of the marriage,
but evidence
of cohabitation between the parties as husband and wife, and the acts,
conduct,
declarations, and admissions of the parties shall be admissible, and
the
marriage may be established like any question of fact. Mr.
FRELINGHUYSEN. I intended to modify that
part of the bill by making it apply only to the future; but under the
view
which is taken by those who are opposed to the bill, I submit it to the
judgment of the Senate without making any opposition. The amendment was
agreed to. Mr. SARGENT. On
page 8 after the word "challenges," in line 53, of section 4, I move
to strike out all down to and including the word "same" in line 57.
The words to be stricken out are: And in the trial of
any prosecution for adultery, bigamy, or polygamy, it shall be a good
cause of
principal challenge to any juror that he practices polygamy, or that he
believes in the rightfulness of the same. MR. FRELINGHUYSEN.
It had been my purpose to restrict that provision to future crimes. It
is insisted,
however, by those who are opposed to the bill that it must be taken out
of the
bill entirely, and rather than that the bill should fail and that there
should
be no law in The amendment was
agreed to. Mr. SARGENT. I have one other amendment,
and it is the last. I am obliged to the Senator
for his courtesy. On page 8, after
the word "challenges," in line 53, I wish to insert “except in
Capital cases, where the prosecution shall be allowed five and the
defense
fifteen challenges." When a man is being
tried for his life, three challenges are rather limited. I think there
is no
State in the Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.
I move to amend that amendment so that the prosecution and defense each
shall
have fifteen, if that is the number. They ought to have the same. Mr. SARGENT. That never
is so under the law I ever heard of. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 0h, yes. Mr. SARGENT. I do
not know that there is any especial objection to the prosecution having
fifteen.
The main point is that the defense shall have fifteen. I will assent to
that
modification, so that it shall be fifteen. The PRESIDING
OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from The amendment was
agreed to. Mr. INGALLS.
I offer the following as an additional
section to the bill: That in all cases in which any
person was deprived of his or her property in the Territory of Utah
prior to
the year 1860 by the action of the Mormons, or who before that time was
forced
to leave the Territory in consequence of the hostility of the Mormons,
and
whose property was taken, used, disposed of, or appropriated by the
said
Mormons, or who suffered any deprivation of property or personal wrong
at the
hands of said Mormons, he or she, or his or her heirs or legal
representatives
shall have the right the individual Mormons, or against those who then
had
control of the Territory; or they may sue for and recover the identical
property , real, personal, or mixed, of which the original party was
deprived
as aforesaid, the same in all respects as if the suit had been brought
at the
time the wrongs were committed: Provided, That such suits shall be
brought in
the proper courts within three years from this date. It is well known, Mr.
President that
in the disturbances in this Territory prior to the year 1860 a large number of people
were expelled and their
property confiscated and otherwise disposed of. Since
that time there have been no courts to which parties
could resort
for the enforcement of their rights or the redress of their wrongs, and
by
lapse of time now that the courts are established they will be barred. The intention of this section is simply to
remove the bar of the statute of limitations which has been enforced by
the act
of the Mormons themselves and to allow parties to sue in the courts for
the
recovery of their property or for the redress of their wrongs. Mr. SARGENT.
Will the Senator state what the statute of
limitations in the Territory of Utah is? Mr. INGALLS.
I do not know what it is. Mr. SARGENT.
I think I am very reliably informed
that there is
no statute of limitations at all in the Territory of Utah. In that case
the
amendment is entirely
unnecessary. It raises a great many questions that I think would
be necessary
to be considered by the Senate. The amendment cannot pass without
discussion.
It embraces too many propositions of a novel character. There is no
necessity
for it, for the reason I have mentioned. I do not think any Senator can
controvert the proposition which I make, that there is no statute of
limitations, and has not been, in the Territory of Utah. That would
dispose of
any necessity for the amendment, and would answer the reason which is
given by
the Senator himself. The proposition itself, however, is of very
doubtful
character. It may be a question whether under it old hatreds will not
be
stirred up, whether on false pretensions persons may not be
persecuted who are
entirely innocent, and whether persons who are not at all responsible
for the
actions complained of may be held liable for them. If I understood
the reading
of the amendment it provides that anybody who had control in Utah in
the
ordinary sense, who held any office of power there, should be
responsible for the
acts of anyone, no matter who, that was lawless in any part of the
Territory
extending for years back .. Certainly provisions of
this kind ought not to be
incorporated in this bill. If there was
any necessity for anything of the kind, if anybody complained that the
courts
of Utah which are opened by the bill have not been open all the time so
that he
could begin a suit, or that he is prevented from so doing by any
statute of
limitations, then we might give it a respectful hearing; but it will
take too
much time to Justify us in adopting this amendment in the loose manner
in which
it is drawn. Mr. INGALLS. It is a
matter of public notoriety that the
courts in Utah have been closed during the period to which the
amendment
refers, and the bill that is now under consideration is for the express
purpose
of providing courts in Utah by which these questions may be tried. So
far as
the questions involved in the amendment are concerned, I would state to
the
Senator from California that they are neither numerous nor novel. It is simply and purely a. question whether
the bar of the statute of limitations shall be removed as against the
persons
by whom these crimes were committed; and the difficulty has been that
the
courts having been closed there has been no forum, no tribunal to which
those
parties could apply for redress. It appears to me that the amendment is
so
humane, it is so just, it is so in accordance with all the principles
'of law
that them ought to be no discussion whatever in the Senate upon it. It
should
be adopted without controversy. Mr. THURMAN. I must
confess my surprise that such an
amendment as this is pressed on this bill, and I should be more
surprised were
it not that I have a very firm conviction that one of the great objects
of this
bill, if not the greatest object of it, is to stir up litigation
whereby
certain gentlemen of the profession ill Utah may make money. I believe
that but
for that special interest of stirring up litigation in that
Territory, we
should .hear nothing of this bill. We hear a great deal
about a failure
of the courts there and of a want of courts. If there is want of courts
there,
it is the want of the officials. There is law enough for courts now;
but it
seems that some gentlemen must have an act passed that shall give rise
to
litigation in
Utah;
and here is a proposition to go
back to 1830,
to
go back fourteen years; to stir up suits for assaults and batteries,
for
trespass, and the like, suits that in every State of this Union that
has a
civil node are banned in one or two years to go back and take them up
and
revive the causes of action against not simply the wrong-doers, but to
create a
cause of action against those who were in the government of the
Territory
whether they were the wrongdoers or not; to revive actions absolutely
banned.
Where does the Senator get his authority to do that, I should like to
know? Mr. INGALLS. The Senator,
certainly,
as a lawyer, must be familiar with the fact that if the Mormons
themselves
have kept the courts closed and refused parties the forum in which
these
matters can be tried when we now attempt to institute courts and
provide for
the administration of justice, these claims ought certainly to be sometimes tried
and heard. Mr. THURMAN.
It
will not do to say that the Mormons have refused a forum. Ever
since 1856 there have been courts of the United
States in that Territory, I believe before 1856; courts maintained by
the power
of the General Government and competent to afford redress to anybody
who was
wronged in that Territory. This proposition therefore is, as I said
before, to
revive causes of action that are absolutely barred; and I once
more demand of
the Senator to know where he finds authority to do such a thing as
that? He has
no more right to revive a cause of action where the bar has become
complete;
than there is to legislate that his house shall become my
property. You may
before the bar becomes complete, in a case of the statute of
limitations,
extend that act; but after the bar of the statute becomes complete the
Legislature has no power to revive that cause of action. Mr. INGALLS.
Does not the Senator
admit the fact that the statute of limitations never runs against fraud? Mr. THURMAN. I do not
admit any such
thing. Mr. INGALLS. It has been
established by
the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly. Mr. THURMAN. I do not
admit any such thing as that the
statute of limitations does not run against fraud. It runs against
many cases
where there is fraud, actions of deceit, actions for obtaining money by
false
pretenses, and a vast variety of cases. But, sir,
that is not the question. The Senators amendment
goes to everything; it goes to the question of an action of ejectment
nor real
estate forsooth when it is as well-settled law in this country as
anything can
be settled that where the bar of the statute of limitations is
complete in
respect to real estate, it operates to divest the title of him who has
been out
of possession and to vest title in him who has had the possession
required by
the statute. You propose to take a man's property, which is his as much
as if
he held it by patent from the United States, and to take it by an act
of
Congress! Surely sir, it cannot be
necessary to back against such a proposition as this amendment unless
we are
prepared to stir up the very worst state of things that can exist in
any
country-a universal litigation from one end of it to the other, and
that with a
feeling on the part of nine-tenths of the people of that Territory that
this
litigation is part of a persecution they are to endure, and endure
perhaps even
to the death. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I shall vote against this
amendment. There
are a great
many amendments which have been made to this bill which I have agreed
to, not
because I thought they ought to be made, but because by reason of the
situation
of the bill I do not think it is wise when we are within two hours of
the end
of the session to introduce on this bill new matter which has nothing
to do with
the great object we have in establishing law in that Territory; and
therefore I
shall vote against the amendment. The PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from
Kansas. The amendment was
rejected. The bill was reported to
the Senate as amended, and the amendments made as
in Committee of the whole were concurred in. The amendments were
ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the
third time. Mr. SPRAGUE. I ask for
the yeas and nays on the passage
of the bill. The yeas and nays were
not ordered. The bill was passed |