The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1878-11-15
WASHINGTON.

DupE6H0 OUuTb VI LUo AeEf!LOE1 Vi CtdHs
This was an indictment in the District
Court for the Territory of Utah, under
section 1882, Revised Statutes of the
United States, VS.. prisoner, George Rey-
nolds, for contracting polygamous mar
riage. Having been convicted in the
Third Judicial District Court, he appealed
to the supreme court of the Territory and
from that court, in which the Judgment
below was affirmed, sued out writ of
error to the supreme court of the United
States. The argument was begun. The
errors assigned 10 the case are very nu-
merous, but only one of them involves
question of general public interest, namely,
whether the United States Congress has q
constitutional right to prohibit polygamous
marriages in the territories. 1t was con-
tended by the counsel for the prisoner that
pologamy is enjoined as religious duty,
and held as an article of faith by the sect
to which the latter belongs, and that con
gress is forbidden by the first amendment
to the constitution to make any law respect
ing an establishment of religion, or to
prohibit the free exercise thereof. At
torney General Devens, of the counsel for
the United States, urged in reply that an
Interpretation of the constitution which
would restrain congress from attaching a
penalty to the crime of polygamy on ac-
count of its being an article Of religious
faith, would also restrain it from attaching
| penalty to any other crime which might
be sanctioned of religion: that under this
ng:d Interpretation of the constitution a
sect Of East India Thugs who should
settle in the territories might commit
murder with impunity, on the ground that
it was sanctioned and enjoined by their
system of religion. He closed with an
eloquent, impressive reference to the well
known Mountain Meadow massacre, by
the Mormon "avenging angels" as an
| illustration of the fanatical extremes to
which men unrestrained by law might be
carried under mistaken conviction Of re-
gious duty. The argument will be CONT
Enued tomorrow.
Following is substantially Lord Sails
bury's reply of Secretary Evarts:
FOREIGN OFFICE, Nov. '7-Sir: r:-Mr.
| Eyarts remarks that the United States
government has not been put in posses
sion of the deposition which form a basis
of Captain Sullivan report, and are un-
able therefore to say whether upon their
consideration the view which the govern
ment of the United States takes of these
transactions upon the sworn statement of
| their own citizens would be all modified.
| Her Maesty's government have not had
opportunity Of considering the statements
in question, but the dispositions which ac-
companied Capt. Sullivan's report, and
which know have the honor to forward,
appeared to them 10 the absence of other
testimony to be conclusive as regards the
| facts in respect to which there appears to
be material divergence between the evil
dence collected by the United States gov
ernment and that collected by the Colonial
authorities. Mr.. Evarts takes exceptions
to my latter statement of the 23d, on the
ground of my statement that the United
States fishermen concerned have been
guilty of breaches of the law, From this
he infers an opinion on my part that it is
competent for British authority to pass
laws in suppression of the treaty binding
American fishermen under the three mile
limit. In pointing out that the American
fishermen had broken the law within the
territorial limits, of Her Majesty's domin-
ions, | had no intention of inferentially
laying down any principles of internatioua
law, and no advantage would, think, bC
| a
the facts in question absolutely require
hardly believe, however, that Mr.. Evart
would IN discussion adhere to the brOa(
doctrine which some portions of his Ian
guage would appear to conVey-that nC
British authority has any right to pass an!
kind of law binding Americans who ar
= fishing in British waters, for if that con
tentIon be just the same disability applies
I IL Al
must be delivered over TO anarchy. Ol
the other hand, Her Majesty's govern
r neDt will readily admit, what Is indeet
self evident, that British sovereignt
] as regards these matters is limited in it
: scope by the engagements of the treat,
of Washington, which cannot be modi
:. fed or affected by municipal election.
] cannot anticipate that with regard to thes
i principles any difference will be found t
e exist between the views of the two govern
d ments. If, however, it be admitted tha
r the newfoundland legislators have th
right of binding Americans who fish with
in their waters by any laws which do nc
contravene existing treaties it must b
IS further conceded that the duty of deter
d mining the existence of any such contra
# vention must be undertaken by the GOV
ernments. and canpot be remitted to th
e discretion of each individual fisherman. fC
Is such discretion, if exercised on one sid,
t, can hardly be refused Oh the other. Ifan
y American fisherman may violently brea
W law which he believes to be contrary [
% a treaty, Newfoundland fisherman ma
D violently maintain it. if he believes it to b
in accordance with the treaty. AS poin
J. in issue are frequently subtle and reuuir
b considerable legal knowledge, nothing bJ
il confusion and disorder could result frol
:. such mode of deciding the Interpretation
r of the treaty. Her Majesty's governmel
d prefer the view that law enacted by Il
legislature of country, whatever it ma
be, ought to be obeged by natives and fol
eigners alike, who may be sojourning witt
:, ip the territorial limits of its jurisdicto
:, but that if law has been inadvertent
IS passed. which is in any degree or respect
= variance with the rights conferred on
a foreign power power by treaty, the CORE
d ton of the mistake as committed at Il
o earliest period after it's existence sh;
e have been ascertained and recognized. is
y matter of international obligation, 1t
l. not explici .'iy stated in Mr.. Evarts' di
patch that he considers any recent acts
colonial legisla tion to be inconsistent vii
the rights acquired by the United Stat
I under the tres ty of Washington, but
y that is the case .4er MajestY's governme
:, will in friendly pirit consider any repr
y seutations he may think it right to maj
upon the subject With the hope of Coz
= s ing to satisfactory understandings hav
= ETC., etc. SALISBURY.
To John Welsh, Esq, etc.
Subscriptiops TO the per cent loan |