believe we are standing to-day not in the presence of character and history; she will stand by the union of the KANSAS-THE MORMONS-SLAVERY. SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS. MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I appear before you to-night, at the request of the grand jury in attendance upon the United States Court, for the purpose of submitting my views upon certain topics upon which they have expressed a desire to hear my opinion, It was not my purpose when I arrived among you, to have engaged in any public or political discussion; but when called upon by a body of gentlemen so intelligent and respectable, coming from all parts of the State, and connected with the administration of public justice, I do not feel at liberty to withhold a full and frank expression of my opinion upon the subjects to which they have referred, and which now engrosses so large a share of the public attention. The points which I am requested to discuss are: 1st. The present condition and prospects of Kansas. 2d. The principles affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case. 3d. The condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate remedies for existing evils. KANSAS. The of whose leaders they act, let the blame be visited of fastening upou the people of a new State, institutions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The organic act secures to the people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of forming and regulating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes. The Democratic party is determined to see the great fundamental principles of the organic act carried out in good faith. The present election law in Kansas is acknowledged to be fair and just-the rights of the voters are clearly defined-and the exercise of those rights will be efficiently and scrupulously protected. Hence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire to have it a Free State (and we are told by the Republican party that nine-tenths of the people of that Territory are Free State men), there is no obstacle in the way of bringing Kansas into the Union as a Free State, by the votes and voice of her own people, and in conformity with the principles of the KansasNebraska act; provided all the Free State men will go to the polls, and vote their principles in accordance with their professions. If such is not the result let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce strife, anarchy and bloodshed in Kansas, that their party may profit by Slavery agitation in the Northern States of this Union. That the Democrats in Kansas will perform their duty fearlessly and nobly, according to the principle they cherish, I have no doubt, and that the result of the struggle will be such as will gladden the heart and strengthen the hopes of every friend of the Union, I have entire confidence. Of the Kansas question but little need be said at the present time. You are familiar with the history of the question, and my connection with it. Subsequent reflection has strengthened and confirmed my convictions in the soundness of the principles and the correctness of, the course I have felt it my duty to pursue upon that subject. Kansas is about to speak for herself through her delegates assembled in Convention to form a Constitution, preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Peace and prosperity now prevail throughout her borders. law under which her delegates are about to be elected, is believed to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially exe-political struggles. Give fair play to that principle of cuted, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise. If any portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice of political leaders in distant States, shall choose to absent themselves from the polls, and withhold their votes, with a view of leaving the Free State Democrats in a minority, and thus securing a Pro-Slavery Constitution in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the people living under it, let the responsibility rest on those who, for partisan purposes, will sacrifice the principles they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them, and upon the political party for whose benefit and under the direction The Kansas question being settled peacefully and satisfactorily, in accordance with the wishes of her own people, Slavery agitation should be banished from the hails of Congress, and cease to be an exciting element in our self-government which recognizes the right of the people of each State and Territory, to form and regulate their own domestic institutions, and sectional strife will be forced to give place to that fraternal feeling which animated the fathers of the Revolution, and made every citizen of every State of this glorious confederacy a meun ber of a common brotherhood. That we are steadily and rapidly approaching that result, I cannot doubt, for the Slavery issue has already dwindled down to the narrow liunts covered by the decisions of the Supreine Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case. The moment that decision was pro nounced, and before the opinions of the Court could be published and read by the people, the newspaper press in the interest of a powerful political party in this country, began to pour forth torrents of abuse and misrepresentations, not only upon the decision, but upon the character and motives of the venerable Chief Justice and his illustrious associates on the bench. The character of Chief Justice Taney and the associate Judges who concurred with him, require no eulogy-no vindication from me. They are endeared to the people of the United States by their eminent public services-venerated for their great learning, wisdom and experience-and beloved for the spotless purity of their characters and their exemplary lives. The poisonous shafts of partisan malice will fall harmless at their feet, while their judicial decisions will stand in all future time, a proud monument to their greatness, the admiration of the good and wise, and a rebuke to the partisans of faction and lawless violence. If, unfortunately, any considerable portion of the people of the United States shall so far forget their obligations to society as to allow partisan leaders to array them in violent resistance to the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal on earth, it will become the duty of all the friends of order and constitutional government, without reference to past political differences, to organize themselves and marshal their forces under the glorious banner of the Union, in vindication of the Constitution and the supremacy of the laws over the advocates of faction and the champions of violence. To preserve the Constitution inviolate, and vindicate the supremacy of the laws, is the first and highest duty of every citizen of a free Republic. The peculiar merit of our form of government over all others, consists in the fact that the law, instead of the arbitrary will of a hereditary prince, prescribes, defines and protects all our rights. In this country the law is the will of the people, embodied and expressed according to the forms of the Constitution. The Courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution, and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole republican system of government a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution-the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws. THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. the merits of the case, as they are now denounced and abused for not having don, the result would have been to remand Dred Scott and his children to perpetual Slavery under the decisions which had already been pronounced by the Supreme Court of Missouri, as well as by the Circuit Court of the United States, with ut obtaining a decision on the merits of his case by the Supreme Court of the United States. Suppose Chief Justice Taney and his associates had thus remanded Dre Scott and his children back to Slavery on a plea i abatement or any mere technical point, not touching the merits of the question, and without deciding whether under the Constitution and laws as applied to the facts of the case Dred Scott was a free man or a slave, would they not have been denounced with increased virulence and bitterness on the charge of having remanded Dred Scott to perpetual Slavery without first examining the merits of his case and ascertaining whether he was a slave or not? If the case had been disposed of in that way, who can doubt that such would have been the character of the denunciations which would have been hurled upon the devoted heads of those illustrious Judges with much more plausibility and show of fairness than they are now denounced for having decided the case fairly and honestly upon its merits? The material and controlling points of the case-those which have been made the subject of unmeasured abuse and denunciation-may be thus stated: 1. The Court decided that under the Constitution of the United States a negro descended from slave parents is not and cannot be a citizen of the United States. 2. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise act, was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the Nebraska act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of extinguishing a master's right to his slave in that Territory. While the right continues in full force under the guaranty of the Constitution, and cannot be divested or alienated by an act of Congress, it necessarily remains a barren and a worthless rig t, unless sustained, protected and enforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation, prescribing adequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of the people of the Territory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislatures. Hence the great principle of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority of this decision. Thus it appears that the only sin involved in the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act consists in the fact of having removed from the statute-book an act of Congress which was unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and void because passed without constitutional authority, and constituted in lieu of it the great fundamental principle of self-government, which recognizes the rights of the people of such State and Territory to control their own domestic concerns. I will direct attention to the question involved in the first proposition, to wit: That the negro is not and cannot be a citizen of the United States. We are told by a certain political organization that that decision is cruel-is inhuman and infamous, and should neither be respected nor obeyed. What is the objection to that decision? Simply that the negro is not a citizen. What is the object of making him a citizen? Of course to give him the rights, privileges and immunities of a citizen, it being the great fundamental law in our Government, that under the law, citizens are equal in their rights and privileges. It is said to be inhuman-to be infamous-to deprive an African negro of these privileges of citizenship, which would put him on an equality with the other citizens of the country The case of Dred Scott was an action of trespass, vi et armis, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, for the purpose of establishing his claim to be a free man, and was taken by writ of error on the application of Scott to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the final decision was pronounced by Chief Justice Taney. The facts of the case were agreed upon and admitted to be true by both parties, and were in substance, that Dred Scott was a negro slave in Missouri, that he went with his master, who was an officer in the army, to Fort Armstrong, on Rock Island, and thence to Fort Snelling on the west bank of the Mississippi River, and within the country covered by the act of Congress known as the Missouri Compromise: and then he reaccompanied his master to the State of Missouri, where he has since remained a slave. Upon this statement of facts two important and material questions arose, besides several incidental and minor ones, which it was incumbent upon the Court to take notice of and decide. Now, let me ask my fellow-citizens, are you prepared to The Court did not attempt to avoid responsibility by dis- resist the constituted authorities of this country, in order posing of the case upon technical points without touch- to secure citizenship, and, through citizenship, equality ing the merits, nor did they go out of their way to decide with the white man. (Voices, "No! no!") If you are, you questions not properly before them and directly present- must reverse the whole policy of this State-the organic law ed by the record. Like honest and conscientious judges, of our own State. In order to carry out that principle of as they are, they met and decided each point as it arose, negro citizenship and negro equality under the law, you and faithfully performed their whole duty and nothing must not only reverse the organic law in our own State, but their duty to the country by determining all the but of every other State in this Union. But you have noi questions in the case, and nothing but what was essen- accomplished it then; you must make furious war upon tial to the decision of the case upon its merits. The State the slaveholding States, to compel them to emancipate and Courts of Missouri had decided against Dred Scott, and set at liberty their three millions of slaves. When that declared him and his children slaves, and the Circuit shall be done, before you have secured that great princiCourt of the United States for the district of Missouri ple of equality to the son of Africa, you must strike out had decided the same thing in this very case which had of the constitution of Illinois that provision which prevents thus been removed to the Supreme Court of the United a negro, whether free or slave, from crossing the Ohio or States by Scott, with the hope of reversing the decision of the Circuit Court and securing his freedom. If the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ of error for want of jur.sdiction, without first examining into and deciding the Mississippi, and coming into Illinois to reside. When you shall have made that change in our organic law, and turned loose all the Africans that may choose to come from the slaveholding States to settle upon our prairies, and turn Illinois into a negro colony, rather than into a State of white men, still you have not secured to the negro the rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. You must then strike the word "white" out of the constitution of our own State, and allow the negro to come to our polls and vote on an equality with yourselves. You must also change the Constitution in that respect that declares, that a negro shall not be eligible to office, and declare that a negro shall be eligible to your Legislature, to the bar, bench, and gubernatorial chair. And still you have not reached that point to which we are told we must go, of placing the negro on an equality with other citizens. You must admit him to the jury-box, and license him by law to marry a white woman. And then you will have secured nearly all the privileges that the decision of the Supreme Court has denied him. (Applause.) | alienate them. They did not mean the negroes and Indians-they did not say we white men and negroes were born equal; but they were speaking of the race of people who colonized America, who ruled America, and who were declaring the liberties of Americans, when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that those men were born free and equal. And if you will examine the journal of the Continental Congress you will find this great principle carried out. No one of the colonies would then consent to the Declaration of Independence until they had placed on the record the express reservation, that each colony reserved and retained to itself the sole and exclusive right of regulating its own domestic concerns and police regulations. It was made a fundamental condition of the Declaration, that this right should be forever reserved beyond the power of Congress or other Confederation or power on earth, except the free will of their own people. The articles of confederation were based upon the same great fundamental principle, and the Constitution of the United States was adopted for the purpose of preserving and carone people for one specified object, but reserved to each State and each locality the sole and exclusive privilege of managing its own domestic concerns. I submit to you, fellow-citizens, whether any man can pronounce the decision inhuman and infamous, without resorting to that great principle, which, carried out, puts the negro on an equality with other citizens. But listen to the speeches of any one of those who sympathizerying into effect the same grand principle that made us so much with the poor African that they are not willing to allow him to occupy an inferior position, and you will find that they all adhere to the position of negro equality. For instance, did you ever hear any of them make a public speech in which he did not quote the Declaration of Independence, that "we hold all men are born free and equal," and then appeal to you to know whether Slavery could be justified or palliated by any man who believed in the Declaration of Independence. Do they not argue that by this instrument negroes were declared to be born equal to white men; and hence, any man who is opposed to carrying out that great dear principle of theirs, of negro equality with the white man, is opposed to the Declaration of Independence. At that day the negro was looked upon as a being of an infer.or race. All history had proved that in no part of the world, or of the world's history, had the negro ever shown himself capable of self-government, and it was not the intention of the founders of this Government to violate that great law of God, which made the distinction between the white and the black man. That distinction is plain and palpable, and it has been the rule of civilization and of Christianity the world over, that whenever any one man, or set of men, were incapable of taking care of themselves, they should consent to be governed by those Now, my friends, permit me to reply to this assumption, who were capable of managing their affairs for them. It that the Declaration of Independence declared the negro is on that principle that your courts of justice appoint to be equal with white men, by a few historical facts re- guardians to take charge of the idiot, the lunatic, the corded in our school-books, and familiar to our children. insane, blind, dumb, the unfortunate, whatever may be his By reference to the History of the United States, you will condition. And if history had proved that the negro race, find that on the Fourth of July, 1776, when the Declara- as a race, were incapable of self-government, it was not tion of Independence was put forth, the thirteen colonies only the right but the duty of those who were capable to were then, each and all of them, slaveholding colonies. provide for them. It did not necessarily follow that they Each signer of the Declaration, without an exception, re- were to be reduced to Slavery. The true principle is that presented a slaveholding constituency. Every battle of the inferior race should be allowed to enjoy all their the Revolutionary War, from Lexington and Bunker Hill rights, which their nature is capable of exercising and to King's Mountain and Yorktown, was fought in a slave- enjoying, consistently with the good of society. I would holding constituency. The treaty of peace with Great not advocate that the negro should be treated harshly or Britain which acknowledged our independence, was made unkindly. Far from it. I would extend and secure to on the part of Great Britain on the one side and the thir- him every right, privilege and immunity he was capable teen original slaveholding States on the other. Passing of enjoying consistent with the highest welfare of society. from that to the formation of the Constitution of the The Constitution is founded on that great principle, and United States, you will find that instrument was framed, leaves to each State, as the articles of confederation did and adopted, and put into operation with the immortal to each colony, the right to determine for itself what Washington at the head, by twelve slaveholding States these principles were, and the extent of them, in order and one free State, or one State about to become free. In that they might adopt their laws to their actual condition. view of these facts, I submit to you whether any sane man Under that great provision, Illinois has chosen to say, can assert that the founders of our institutions intended to that the negro shall not come here to reside-that a negro put the negro and the white man on an equality in the sys- shall not vote-shall not hold office-shall not serve in the tem of government which they adopted? If the signers of the jury-box-shall not marry white women-and I think Declaration had intended to declare the negro equal to the that the Constitution of Illinois is wisely framed as to this white man, would not they, on that very day, have abolished provision. On the other hand, Kentucky goes further, Slavery in every one of the States of the Union in order to and deprives the negro of his right over his person. have conformed to that Declaration? If any one of these Kentucky, under the Constitution, had a right to make States had thus understood the Declaration of Indepen- that provision. We have no right to complain of her, dence, would not that State then immediately have abol- nor can she complain of us. Each has the right to do as ished Slavery, and put the negro on an equality with the it pleases, and each must mind its own business and not white man in conformity with that Declaration? Did they interfere with its neighbor's concerns. (Applause.) do so? I have already shown you that no one of those Our fathers, when they framed this Government, had States abolished Slavery during the whole period of the witnessed the sad and melancholy results of the mixture Revolutionary war. I have already stated, and I challenge of the races in Mexico, South America and Central contradiction, that to this day no one of them has put America, where the Spanish, from motives of policy, had the negro on an equality with the white man in all the admitted the negro and other inferior races to citizenship laws touching on the relations of life. And yet, if they and, consequently, to political and social amalgamation. honestly believed the Declaration of Independence meant The demoralization and degradation which prevailed in negroes as well as white men, they were bound to advocate the Spanish and French colonies, where no distinctions on every law so as to carry out their principle. Their posi- account of color or race were tolerated, operated as a tion on this subject would charge the signers of that De-warning to our revolutionary fathers to preserve the claration with hypocrisy in making it to the world, and purity of the white race, and to establish their political, going on to fight battles on the principle thus asserted. social and domestic institutions upon such a basis as But no vindication is needed from me of those immortal would forever exclude the idea of negro citizenship and men who drafted, and signed, and proclaimed to the world negro equality. (Applause.) the Declaration of Independence. They did what they They understood that great natural law which declares professed. They had reference to the white man, and to that amalgamation between superior and inferior races him only, when they declared all men were created equal. brings their posterity down to the lower level of the infeThey were in a struggle with Great Britain. The principle rior, but never elevates them to the high level of the suthey were asserting was that a British subject, born on perior race. I appeal to each of those gallant young American soil was equal to a British subject born in Eng. men before me, who won immortal glory on the bloody land-that a British subject here was entitled to all the fields of Mexico, in vindication of their country's right rights, and privileges, and immunities, under the British and honor, whether their information and observation in Constitution, that a British subject in England enjoyed; that country does not fully sustain the truth of the prothat their rights were inalienable, and hence that Parlia-position that amalgamation is degradation, demoralizament, whose power was omnipotent, had no power to I tion, disease and death? Is it true that the aegro is our equal and our brother? The history of the times clearly | from office, and to fill their places with bold, able, and show that our fathers did not regard the African race as any kin to them, and determined so to lay the foundation of society and government that they should never be of kin to their posterity. (Immense applause.) But, when you confer upon the African race the privileges of citizenship, and put them on an equality with white men at the polls, in the jury-box, on the bench, in the Executive chair, and in the councils of the nation, upon what principle will you deny their equality at the festive board and in the domestic circle? The Supreme Court of the United States have decided that, under the Constitution, a negro is not and cannot be a citizen. true men, and to cause a thorough and searching inves tigation into all the crimes and enormities which are alleged to be perpetrated daily in that Territory, under the direction of Brigham Young and his confederates and to use all the military force necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of their duties, and to en force the laws of the land. (Applause.) When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts which are believed to exist, it will become the duty of Congress to apply the knife and gut out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer. (Applause.) No temporizing policy-no halfway measures will then answer. It has been supposed by those who have not thought deeply upon the subject, that an act of Con The Republican Abolition party pronounce that decision cruel, inhuman and infamous, and appeal to the Ameri-gress prohibiting murder, robbery, polygamy, and other can people to disregard and refuse to obey it. Let us join issue with them, and put ourselves upon the country for trial. (Cheers and applause.) CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN UTAH, AND THE REMEDY. Mr. President, I will now respond to the call which has been made upon me for my opinions of the condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate remedies for existing evils. The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the Compromise Measures of 1850, on the supposition that the inhabitants were American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, and consequently entitled to the benefits of self-government while a Territory, and to admission in the Union on an equal footing with the original States, as soon as they should number the requisite population. It was conceded on all hands, and by all parties, that the peculiarities of their religious faith and ceremonies interposed no valid and constitutional objection to their reception into the Union, in conformity with the Federal Constitution, so long as they were in all other respects entitled to admission. Hence, the great political parties of the country indorsed and approved the Compromise Measures of 1850, including the act for the organization of the Territory of Utah, with the hope and in the confidence that the inhabitants would conform to the Constitution and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable and law-abiding citizens. If we are permitted to place credence in the rumors and reports from that country (and it must be admitted that they have increased and strengthened and assumed consistency and plausibility by each successive mail), seven years' experience has disclosed a state of facts entirely different from that which was supposed to exist when Utah was organized. These rumors and reports would seem to justify the belief that the following facts are susceptible of proof. 1. That nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have refused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or to do any other act recognizing the Government of the United States as the paramount authority in that Territory. 2. That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mormons, (and they constitute the whole people of the Territory), are bound by horrid oaths and terrible penalties, to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Young, and the government of which he is the head, as paramount to that of the United States, in civil as well as in religious affairs; and that they will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means in their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its authority. crimes, with appropriate penalties for those offences, would afford adequate remedies for all the enormities complained of. Suppose such a law to be on the statute book, and I believe they have a criminal code, providing the usual punishment for the entire catalogue of crimes, according to the usages of all civilized and Christian countries, with the exception of polygamy, which is practised under the sanction of the Mormon Church, but is neither prohibited nor authorized by the laws of the Territory. to Suppose, I repeat, that Congress should pass a law prescribing a criminal code, and punishing polygamy among other offences, what other effect would it havewhat good would it do? Would you call on twenty-three grand jurymen, with twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor miserable wretch for having two wives? (Cheers and laughter.) Would you call upon twelve petit jurors, with twelve wives each, to convict the same loathsome wretch for having two wives? (Continued applause.) Would you expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three "Danites find a bill of indictment against a brother "Danite" for having murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens, under their direction? Much less would you expect a jury of twelve "destroying angels to find another "destroying angel" guilty of the crime of murder, and cause him to be hanged for no other offence than taking the life of a Gentile? No! If there is any truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Congress may pass whatever laws it chooses; but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries to punish crimes committed by Mormons in that Territory. Some other and more effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In my opinion, the first step should be the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act-blotting the Territorial Government out of existence upon the ground that they are outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying the authorities of the United States. (Immense applause.) The Territorial Government once abolished, the country would revert to its primitive condition pricr to the act of 1850, "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," and should be placed under the operation of the act of Congress of the 80th of April, 1790, and the various acts supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof, "providing for the punishment of crimes against the United States within any fort, arsenal dockyard, magazine, OR ANY OTHER PLACE OR DISTRICT or COUNTRY, UNDER THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the United States." All offenses against the provisions of these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the United States Courts in the States or Territories where the offenders shall be "FIRST APPREHENDED OR BROUGHT FOR TRIAL." Thus it will be seen that under the plan proposed, BRIGHAM YOUNG and his confederates could be "apprehended and brought for trial," to Iowa or Missouri, California or Oregon, or to any other adjacent State or Territory, where a fair trial could be had, and justice administered impartiallywhere the witnesses could be protected and the judg ment of the court could be carried into execution, without violence or intimidation. I do not propose to introduce any new principles into our jurisprudence, nor to change the modes of proceeding or the rules of practice If, upon a full investigation, these representations in our Courts. I only propose to place the district of shall prove true, they will establish the fact that the country embraced within the Territory of Utah under Mormon inhabitants of Utah, as a community, are out- the operation of the same laws and rules of proceeding, laws and alien enemies, unfit to exercise the right of that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota and our other Terri self-government under the organic act, and unworthy to tories were placed before they became organized Terri be admitted into the Union as a State, when their only tories. The whole country embraced within these Terriobject in seeking admission is to interpose the sov-tories was under the operation of that same system of ereignty of the State, as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and crime, debauchery and infamy. (Applause.) 3. That the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now forming alliance with Indian tribes in Utah and adjoining territories-stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility-and organizing bands of his own followers under the name of Danites, or Destroying Angels," to prosecute a system of robbery and murders upon American citizens, who support the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and disgusting practices and institutions of the Mormon Government. Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as I have no doubt it is his fixed purpose to remove Brigham Young and all his followers laws, and all the offenses committed within the same were punished in the manner now proposed, so long as the country remained "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;" but the moment the country was organized into Territorial Governments, with legislative, executive and judicial departments, it ceased to be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the meaning of the act of Congress, for the reason that it had passed under another and a different jurisdiction. Hence, if we abolish the Territorial Government of Utah, preserving all existing rights, and place the country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, offenders can be apprehended and brought into the adjacent States or Ter-object for which it was acquired and the purpose for ritories for punishment, in the same manner and under the same rules and regulations which obtained and have been uniformly practiced under like circumstances since 1790. If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate remedy for the evils complained of in Utah, no one, no matter what his political creed or partisan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished theory or constitutional right in regard to the government of the Territories. It is a great mistake to suppose that all the territory or land belonging to the United States must necessarily be governed by the same laws and under the same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to which it is dedicated or the use which it is proposed to make of it; while all that portion of the country which is or shall be set apart to become new States, must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to admit new States, it does not follow that other territory, not intended to be organized and admitted into the Union as States, must be governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all the rights of self-government and State equality. For instance, if we should purchase Vancouver's Island from Great Britain for the purpose of removing all the Indians from our Pacific territories and locating them on that island as their permanent home, with guaranties that it should never be occupied or settled with white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be made and the island governed under the power to admit new States when it was not acquired for that purpose, nor intended to be applied to that object? Being acquired for Indian purposes and applied to Indian purposes, it is not more reasonable to assume that the power to acquire was derived from the Indian clause, and the island must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which relates to Indian affairs. Again, suppose we should deem it expedient to buy a small island in the Mediterranean or the Carribean Sea for a naval station, can it be said with any force or plausibility that the purchase should be made or the island governed under the power to admit new States? On the contrary, is it not obvious that the right to acquire and govern in that case is derived from the power" to provide and maintain a navy,' and must be exercised consistently with that power. So, if we purchase land for forts, arsenals, or other military purposes, or set apart and dedicate any territory which we now own for a military reservation, it immediately passes under the military power and must be governed in harmony with it. So if the land be purchased for a mint, it must be governed under the power to coin money; or, if purchased for a post-office, it must be governed under the power to establish post-offices and post-roads; or, for a custom-house, under the power to regulate commerce; or for a court-house, under the judiciary power. In short, the clause in the Constitution under which any land or territory belonging to the United States must be governed, is indicated by the which it is dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah shall remain in force, setting apart that country for a new State, and pledging the faith of the United States to receive it into the Union as soon as it should have the requisite population, we are bound to extend to it all the rights of self-government, agreeably to the clause in the Constitution providing for the admission of new States. Hence the necessity of repealing the organic act-withdrawing the pledge of admission, and placing it under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, in order that persons and property may be protected, and justice administered, and crimes punished under the laws prescribed by Congress in such cases. While the power of Congress to repeal this organic act and abolish the Territorial Government cannot be denied, the question may arise whether we possess the moral right of exercising the power, after the charter has been once granted and the local government organized under its provisions. This is a grave question-one which should not be decided hastily, nor under the influence of passion or prejudice. I am free to say that in my opinion there is no moral right to repeal the organic act of a Territory, and abolish the government organized under it, unless the inhabitants of that Territory, as a community, have done such acts as amount to a forfeiture of all rights under it-such as becoming alien enemies, outlaws, disavowing their allegiance, or resisting the authority of the United States. These, and kindred acts, which we have every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in that Territory, would not only give us the moral right, but make it our imperative duty to abolish the Territorial Government, and place the inhabitants under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to the end that justice may be done and the dignity and authority of the Government vindicated. I have thus presented plainly and frankly my views of the Utah question-the evils and the remedy-upon the facts as they have reached us, and are supposed to be substantially correct. If official reports and authentic information shall change or modify these facts, I shall be ready to conform my notion to the real facts as they shall be found to exist. I have no such pride of opinion as will induce me to persevere in an error one moment after my judgment is convinced. If, therefore, a better plan can be devised-one more consistent with justice and sound policy, or more effective as a remedy for acknow ledged evils, I shall take great pleasure in adopting it, in lieu of the one I have presented to you to-night. In conclusion, permit me to express my grateful acknowledgments for your patient attention and the kind and respectful manner in which you have received my remarks. INVASION OF STATES--SEDITION LAW PROPOSED. SPEECH OF MR. DOUGLAS. On the 16th of January, 1860, Mr. Douglas | rely, that a conspiracy of formidable extent, in means and submitted to the United States Senate the following Resolution : Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union, against invasion by the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory; and for the suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State or Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territory of the Union. This Resolution, coming up as a special order on the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas said: Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the Governor of Virginia addressed on official communication to the President of the United States, in which he said: "I have information from various quarters, upon which I numbers, is formed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New-York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates, prisoners at Charleston, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable" "Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, unwe are kept in continual apprehension of outrage fran fire obstructed by guards or otherwise, to invade this State, and and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may take steps to preserve peace between the States." States, on the 28th of November, returned a reply, from To this communication, the President of the United which I read the following sentence: "I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitutiou or laws of the United States which would authorize me to take steps for this purpose."" [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] Mr. Douglas argued at considerable length, to prove that the Constitution does provide for the |