Now it seems to me that if the Supreme Court of the United States knows what a bill of attainder is, the eighth and ninth sections of this act are clearly in violation of the Constitution. When I took a seat in this House I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I can not and will not swear to a lie even to emphasize my abhorrence of polygamy or to punish a Mormon, and with my views of this act I would have had to do so if I had voted for the bill when it passed. It would seem that after organizing a packed jury to convict, the authors of the bill ought then to have been willing to await a conviction before depriving American citizens of the right to vote or hold office. For what is an American, deprived of those rights? He may live in a land of boasted freedom, but thus stripped of the rights and privileges that freemen most value, he is no better than a slave.

Let the carpet bagger, expelled finally from every State in the American Union with the brand of disgrace stamped upon his brow, lift up his head once more and turn his face toward the setting sun. Utah beckons him to a new field of pillage and fresh pastures of pilfering. Let him pack his grip sack and start. The Mormons have no friends, and no one will come forward to defend or protect their rights. A returning board, from whose decision there is no appeal, sent out from the American Congress baptized with the spirit of persecution and intolerance, will enter Utah to trample beneath their feet the rights of the people of that far-off and ill-fated land. Mr. Speaker, I would not place a dog under the dominion of a set of carpet-baggers, re-enforced by a returning board, unless I meant to have him robbed of his bone. A more grinding tyranny, a more absolute despotism was never established over any people.

The Mormons have been guilty of believing in, and some of them practicing, polygamy. But they have been guilty of another sin also. They have committed the offense of belonging to the democratic party. That Territory now has a population about large enough to be admitted into the Union. It would not do to let it enter the Union as a democratic State. There is not now the least danger of it. After it has passed under the manipulations of the returning board, after her people have been driven from their homes under the oppressive laws that will be passed under the powers conferred by this law, after the carpet-bagger has gone in and taken possession, Utah, clothed in the habiliments of the republican party, will be welcomed into the sisterhood of States. I did desire to notice some other features of this law, but time forbids. It was passed under the operation of the previous question, and no one had the opportunity to discuss it or to point out its imperfections. The Delegate sent here by the people of that Territory, by a barefaced usurpation on the part of the governor, was denied a certificate of election, and was not allowed to take the seat to which he had been elected, or to speak in behalf of his people while they were being robbed of their rights.

HON. JAMES W. STILLMAN, FREETHINKER, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 12TH FEB., 1884.

The bill which Senator Hoar has reported is an ex post facto law, because it changes the rules of evidence as already indicated. The Edmunds bill is a bill of attainder; and it is an ex post facto law, because it punishes these people without a judicial trial; it increases the punishment for polygamy by disfranchisement and disqualification to hold office. Every Senator and every Representative who voted for that bill had taken a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and yet, unmindful of that oath, actuated by the spirit of religious bigotry and fanaticism which I have denounced here to-night, they lost sight entirely of their constitutional obligations, and nullified one of the most important provisions of that great instrument.

RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.

JUDGE JEREMIAH S. BLACK'S ARGUMENT.

The end and object of this whole system of hostile measures against Utah seems to be the destruction of the popular rule in that Territory. I may be wrong—for I can only reason from the fact that is known to the fact that is not known—but I do not think that the promoters of this legislation care a straw how much or how little the Mormons are married. It is not their wives, but their property; not beauty, but booty, that they are after. I have not much faith in political piety, but I do most devoutly believe in the hunger of political adventurers for spoils of every kind. How else can you account for the struggles they are now making to get possession of all the local offices in the Territory, including the treasurer, auditor, and all depositories of public money? If they do not want to rob the people, why do they reach out their hands for such a grab as this?

Coming back to the original and fundamental proposition that you have no authority to legislate about marriage in a Territory, you will ask what then are we to do with polygamy? It is a bad thing and a false religion that allows it. But the people of Utah have as good a right to their false religion as you have to your true one. Then you add that it is not a religious error merely, but a crime which ought to be extirpated by the sword of the civil magistrate. That is also conceded. But those people have a civil government of their own, which is as wrong-headed as their Church. Both are free to do evil on this and kindred subjects if they please, and they are neither of them answerable to you. That brings you to the end of your string. You are compelled to treat this offense as you treat others in the States and in the Territories—that is, leave it to be dealt with by the powers that are ordained of God or by God Himself, who will in due time become the minister of His own justice.

* * * * *