The Nevada journal., 1861-03-01

design was 10 prove that our government was
committed to Christianity from the first.as it was
not committed to any other creed or faith That
Christianity had a rCcD2nized iootho'd, which
neither Infidelity, Paganism nor Mohamedan-
ism had. Our government may tolerate these
things to a certain extent, but, it does not tole
rate Christianity. This is here by a right, older
and more sacred than the government Itself
Thus Christianity has given us a Sabbath, and,
a law protecting it would not violate single
fundamental principle of our government
while, law abolishng it, would. Christianity
has given us a standard of morals, and any
practices, growing out of any other faith, which
are contrary to this standard, can be ConstdH-
tioaally suppressed. Mohamedanism cannot
bring its harem, Buddhism its infanticide and
Sutteeism, or Thughism its religious stranglings
into our midst, though these parts Of their
religion"
The assumption that because our govern
ment was not committed to any other creed
or faith it must be committed to Christi
anity, is forced one in logic, if not in fact.
FEDERATION, we have already endeavored to
show from Mr.. Madison and the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, is not the word, un-
less accompanied by the adjective, equal
law protecting the Sabbath would not Vi
olate single fundamental principle of our
government while a law abolishing it
would. If Il State law is meant, we concur,
that it would not violate a fundamental
principle of the general government, if it
protected the Christian Sabbath but we by
no means concede that a State law abolish
ing the Sabbath would violate a fundamen-
tai principle of the Constitution. That we
assert cannot be shown. Mr.. Briefly falls
into another error when he says any prac-
ticeS contrary to the standard of Christian
morality can be ConsttutiondHy suppressed.
If he means constitutionally in the sense
his discourses and articles indicate, we deny
it, and challenge him or any other man to
show us how the general government can
interfere in a State. If he means constitu-
tionally in State sense, it has no business
with the argument which only has to do
with the powers of the Constitution of the
Union. He tells US in this connection that
Mohammedanism cannot bring its harem,
rhugism its stranglings etc, into our midst
Very true, and why? Not on account Of
an inhibiting power in the Constitution, but
because the moral sense of the people is
opposed and has established local laws
against such practices. But, if Mr.. Briefly
will just look over the mountains he will
see the equal of the Mehammedan harem
among the Mormons, and the corresponding
Thugism in their q Destroying Angels. -
These practices have existed for years on
the soil of the United States and no effort
has been made by the government to put
them down. The Mormon problem stands
confessed the very ugliest one with which
we have to deal. Congress can admit the
Mormons as a State into the Union, and
when once in, the wisest statesmen are baf-
fed to find single clause in the Constitu-
ton by which poiygamy and the DANTE
band may be exterminated. 1t is conceded
by majority of the civilized world that a
man has as good right to two wives as
two niggers The religious authority relied
on to sustain slavery is also relied on to
sustain polygamy. As State institution,
either is beyond the reach of the Federal
government.
One more quotation from the reverend
gentleman and we are done:
GAS local laws must be in accordance with
the Constitution of the State, and of the United
States, then law for the protection of Christi
anity, to the full extent for which | have con-
tended, is i'll accordance with the spirit of the
Constitution, By you' otrn admission
What is attempted to be proven by this
excerpt we are at a loss to say. If it means
that we have admitted Christianity may be
protected by the Constitution, we reply, we
have made no such admission. If it means
that a State law protecting religion would |
be in accordance with the Constitution of
the United States, we answer that the Con- |
stitution has nothing to do with the matter. !
The spirit of the Constitution is to let the |
matter entirely alone. If he means that a
State law for the protection of Christianity, |
made to fill blank left by the trainers of
the Constitution in that instrument, is all |
the protection he has ever claimed, surely |
he and ourselves are manufacturing great
many words for nothing.