New-York tribune., 1881-09-17
LAWS AGAINST MORMONTSM

LAWS AGAINST MORMONTSM
Some of the States have been called this
summer to plan measures for repIcssng the
raNelllng agents of the Mormon Church.
These missionaries have been active in several
parts OF the country, and either their intem-
perate zeal or unwhOlesome success has aroused
opposition. In the Georgia Legislature, for in
stance, law was earnestly proposed furnishing
attempts to make prOsclytes to Mormonism us
felony In answer it was urged that mere
teaching of tenets and opinions, however false,
cannot be forbidden without interfering with
the sacred liberties of speech, religion and the
press.
1lme and the progress of human development
VIII one day suggest notifications of the con-
sltutional clauses asserting religious liberty.
They were framed century more ago. as
the resolve of a growing popular conscience
against the religious tyranny of hierarchs and
monarchs. They will need modification when
government comes to be the resolve of hui
name, sincere, enlightened popular conscience
against the lust, selfshncss and violence of
self-seekers and demagogues. And government
in this country is steadily growing toward that
ideal. 1t was when aristocracy in England was
maintaining an Established Church, largely as a
support for younger sons, with the natural re-
suits OF burdensome 'tithes, an insiucere clergy
and an oppressive uniformity of routine in wor-
ship, that our ancestors-just escaped from
these eVils-declared that their newly created
governments should never legisate for a reli-
gious establishment. 1t was when Old World
governments were hindcrng the abors Of re-
formers for the religious elevation of the
masses, that earnest and faithful men of all
views united IN the declaration that-rcligion
shall he free The inclination to repress poyg-
imy by law does not spring from m0narcnical
source, nor aim at restricting popular progress.
1t is the dictate of the peoples conscience, the
thrOb of the popular heart the cndcavor of the
masses to protect their cherished domestic in
stitutions against insidous undermining by
agents of a hierarchy. Thus the situation is
completely reversed. Is it not n remarkable
turn i'll history that the protest in behalf of free
religion, framed to guard the homes of the peo-
pie against legislation which might be inspired
by the self-ndulgence or ambition of such a
dynasty that Of the four Georges can now
be cited forbidding representatives. chosen
by the people to defend the domestic life
which the nation prefers by laws breathing the
spirit which animatcs such households as those
of Haves and Garfield II is safe to saw that
notifications of the rule will one day be made.
While the pioneer settlement is daily threatened
10y the Indians, a strong, close stockade must be
maintained. But when the Indians remove to
distant hunting grounds, and cultivating the
open country around the fort becomes safe il
is wise to cut gates in the stockade. Our an
ccstors did well to erect firm barrier against
tyranny of government in matters of religion.
When, however, government shall become
wholly popular and can be trusted to promote.
iuI, -, -.
best faith and thought of the people, our pos
terity will do well to give it some permission
and power To do so.
But the world can wait awhile for this change.
For the time being. the general rule of consti-
tutional law forbids interference with freedom
of opinion. The individual may hold and avow
whatever thoughts are his it is not until I'M
sound belief crystallizes in immoral acts that
the State can interfere. Law must wait and
watch until false doctrine begins to manifest
itself in evil conduct. This is the general rule :;
it may not he absolutely universal. What is
said on the subject in the Federal Constitution
restraints Congress only. Viewing that instru-
ment alone one might suppose that the power
To authorize a religious establishment, or to
restrict teaching and preaching, was reserved TO
the States, and that the Legislatures might pass
such laws. Several of the early State Consti-
tutions did some old ones remaining in force
still do somewhat favor the simpler and more
fundamental tenets of Christianity. For the
most part, however, the State Constitutions
have forbidden the Legislatures to Interfere
with religious faith and opinion.
1t will be remembered, however that tbe
Reynolds case was argued for the MIormons
upon the broad assertion that, as polygamv WAS
matter of religious belief Congress could not
forbid it. But the Supreme Court disposed of
this argument by drawing n sound and right
cous distinction between opinion which is free.
and conduct which is subject to law This line
needs to be studied. The situation calls for
care in discriminating between free Thought
and disordcrly conduct. At what point does
opinion advance to become bchavorY Let it
be remembered that the realm of practical life
of conduct-may be regulated by law; inn
moral action may be forbidden and punished
Notwithstanding the excuse of an unsouud he
lief be assigned for it, Within this realm of tbe
actual, lawgivers may find abundant scope for
wholesome effort.
----------------