The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-10
THE POLYGAMY CASE.

THE POLYGAMY CASE.
OF REYNoLDs-wHAT CONSTITUTES RELIGIOUS
LIpERrY-poLYGANY AN OFFENCE UNDER THE
LAW.
WASHINGTON. Jan. 8. 1879.
A decision was rendered in the United States Su-
preme Court on Monday last and briefly reported in
the case Of the poyganist George Reynolds against
the United States, brought here by appeal from the
Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. The follow
ing is. with unimportant exceptions. tho full
text of the opinion of the Court delivered by Chief
Justice Waite SO far it relates to the prisoners
plea of religious belief and to the constitutional
power of Congress to prohibit polygamy in the Ter
ritories -
The question is raised whether religious belief
be accepted q justification Of an overt act made
criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not
laws for the Territories, but to the guilt of
who knowingly violates violates law which has
religious belief that the law is wrong
Congress cannot pass law for the government of
the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise
OF religion. The first amendment to the constitu-
ton expressly forbids such legislation. Religious
freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the
dominion of the United States so far as Congressional
interference is concerned The question to be deter
mined is whether the law now under consideration
comes within this prohibition.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DEFINED.
The word religion is not defined In the constitu-
ton We must 20 elsewhere. therefore, to ascertain
its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we
think than the history Of the times in the midst
of which the provision was adopted. The precise
point of the inquiry is What is the religious freedom
That has been guaranteed? In the preamble of an act
introduced in the Virginia House Of Delegates by JEFF
ferson 17S5, religious freedom is defined and after
recitpg that to suffer the civil magistrate to ntrude
his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain
the profession or propagation of principles the
suppositon of their i'll tendency. is dangerous fall
lacy which at once destroys all religious liberty
1t is declared that it is time enough for the rghfu
purposes of civil government for its officers to inter-
fere when principles break out into overt acts against
peace and good order" In these two sentences is
found the true distinction between what properly be-
than year after the passage this statute the
convention met which prepared the constitution Of
the United States.
Five of the States, while adopting the constitution
proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire,
New York and Vrginia-included in one form or
another a declaration of religious freedom in the
changes they desired to have made. did also North
Carolina, where the convention at first declined to
ratify the constitution until the proposed amend
sion Of the first Congress the amendment now under
consideration was proposed: with others. by Mr..
Madison. 1t met the views Of the advooates of relig
ious freedom and was adopted.
JEFYRRsONs VIEWS
Mr.. Jefferson afterward. in reply to an address to
him by committee of the Danbury Baptist Asso-
citation. took occasion to say
Believing with you that religion Is which lies
on for % & & s
ave Of the government reach actions only and
S S Ss
Of make s ss . a. sxsss
Thereof thus building wal, Of separation between Church
% ShH 81 the n"n
: ss with sssS .% 70 s % H.
rights convinced that he has natural right in oppos-
tion TO his social duties
hia doa clpoxv al "a Iae doc
of the advocates Of the measure 1t may be accepted
almost authoritative declaration Of the scope
and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress
was deprived Of all Legislative power opin-
ion but left free to reach actions which in
violation of social duties or subverstve of good order
POLYGAMY AN OFFENCE.
From that day to this we think, 1t may safely be
said there has been time in any State Of the
Union when polygamy has not been an offence
against society cognizabe by the civil courts
and punishable with more less severity. In
the face Of all this evidence it is impossi-
BILE to believe that the constitutional guarantee
of religious freedom intended to prohibit egisla
ton in respect to this most important element OF
social life. Marriage. while from its very nature
sacred obligation is nevertheless, in most civilized
nations civil contract and usually regulated by law.
Upon society be said % be built and out of its
fruits spring social relations and social obligations
and duties with which the government is necessarily
required to deal. In fact according homogeneous
or polygamous marriages are allowed, do md the
principles which the government of the people to
greater less extent rests. An exceptional colony
of poygarnsts under IN exceptional leadership NAV
sometimes exist for time without appearing to dis
turb the social condition of the people who surround
it. but there cannot be doubt that unless restricted
by form of constitution It il within the legti-
mate scope of the power OF every civil government
10 determine whether pclygamy or monogamy shall
be the law of social life under its dominion.
LAW CONSTITUTIONAL.
In our opinion the statute immediately under con-
sideraton Is within the Legislative power OF Congress.
1t is constitutional and valid AS prescribing rule
of action for all those residing in the Territories
and in places over which the United States have
exclusive control. This being the only question
xvh wi ma Ia
part OF their religion excepted from the opera
tion OF the statute. If they are then those who do
may be found guilty and punished. while those who
do must be acquitted and go free. This would be
introducing d now element into criminal law. Laws
are made for the government OF actions and while
they cannot interfere with religious belief and
opinions they may with practices. suppose one re-
1gousy believed that human sacrifices were ncces
airy part religious worship Would 1t be seriously
contended that the civil government under which he
lived could not interfere prevent sacrifice? Or,
IL wife regiously believed IL was her duty to burn
herself upon the funeral pile OF her dead husband.
would IL be beyond the power OF the civil government
pre- her carrying her belief into practice SO
here. society, under the exclusive dominion OF the
United States. prescribes law of its organization
that plural marriages shall not be allowed Can q
man excuse his practices TO the contrary because of
his religious bcliefy To permit this would be to make
the doctrines of religious belief superior to the law
OF the land and in effect to permit every citizen to
become law unto himself. Government could
exist only in name under such circumstances.
CRIMINAL INTENT
A criminal intent is necessary element OF crime.
but every man ia presumed TO intend the necess ry
and Legitimate consequences of what he knowingly
does. Here the accused knew he had been once
married aud that his first wife was living lie also
knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law.
When, therefore. he married the second time, he is
presumed to have intended to break the law.
and the breaking of the Law is the crime.
Every act necessary to constitute the crime
was knowingly done. and the crime was,
therefore,, knowingly committed. Ignorance of u
fact may sometimes be taken rs evidence of want OF
criminal intent. but not ignorance of the The
only defence of the accused in this is his belief
that the law ought not TO have been enacted IL mat
tcrs not that his belief part of his religion IL
was still belief. and belief only.
Upon careful consideration of the whole we
are satisfied that was committed by the
co,rt betov and the Indictment IL consequently af-