The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-10-18

/ I'LL
! those laws to secure their repeal. Also
l have reference to at least one where a
very able opinion rendered by the Su-
preme Court of the United States
which l admit as a lawyer and as q citi-
zen is the lastforum of adjudication ::
but learned from experience and Oh
serVatiOn that there is a higher tribunal
than that; one which the great poIitical
parties of the day recognize as a higher
law, and one which they are bound TO
respect, though even it contravened
every part of the annunciation of the
Supreme Court; and that case was a
case with which your Honor is familiar
In the bred Scott case against Sanford
was called in question and called nm
constitutional what is known as the
Missouri Compromise Act, and by the
resistance to That position, though it
was pronounced by the Supreme Court
valid, a resistance 10 that act as agitated
by the country and by one OF the
great political parties, until thew
reached that position which brought on
the confiict-Drought on the greatest
interecene war the world has ever seen.
In all const tutiOnal laws | am ready.
and ever have been, To say that would
uphold and proclaim them not ONLY by
my influence and whatever means +
possess, but by personal sacrifice, if re-
quired. But so far as the law to which
your Honor has referred, the courts I
know, differ with me upon that (tbey
have the right, and | have the same
right to differ from them is law reach
ing into the domain of morals excku-
sively, and to that extent, or unto that
domain, have never learned. that the
Constitution of the United States an
thorized Congress to 60
THE COURTS it not wrong for one
man to kill another2
Mr.. MINER-YeS, Your Honor.
THE COURTS not that immoral?
Mr.. Miner-Yes, but not more so be
cause the law pronounces the act crimi-
nal.
THE COURT - That is enacting the
moral law into the municipal law, is it
not?
Mr.. MINER-Yes, nothing else; as our
great founder and commentator of the
law says
THE CoURT-The criminal law is moth
ing more than that, is it?
Mr.. MINER-Yes, sir, that which is
NAHUM IN Sc and that which is nahum
pr0hi6itum.
THE CoURT-The principle is that that
conduct which, in all of It's CONSEQUENCE es
aggregates human misery, is wrong,
and which promotes human welfare
and human happiness, is right.
Mr. MINER True; just as Justice
BLACKSTONE says in reference to these
matters, that the crime of murder is no
more crime-there is no turpitude
attached to it-by reason of the law but
that, being in direct violation, of the
law of God.
THE CoURT-Well, Mr.. Miner, it is not
worth while for you to ask the question
whether this law is right or wrong.
Mr.: MINEK-I was simply stating my
position and my reasons
THE CoURT-You are not the one to
say whether it is right or not. The SUI
preme Court of the United States have
said the law was constitutional and
right, and it is not for you to say it is
not.
NR. MINER-The whole Republican
party have done that
The CoURT-They did it at their
peril
Mr.. MINER-Simply, they were in the
majority and the more powerful
THE CoURT-Well, what the RepubI-
can party does is not the law of the
land. 1t is the law of the land that
must govern civil conduct.
Mr.. MINER-It became such, your
Honor. That is the domain of morals.
NV only judgment is that they have
not right to enter that domain. And
again, if we should go back to the facts
as they appeared in the enactment of
this law, it was not passed by Congress;
it was not passed by majority of the
Senate-I think not to exceed 20 votes
were given on the passage of that act,
and that before full house. These are
matters, which are matters of consci-
ence between man and his God. Mans
conscience may be warped, may be
biased, may be unenlightened. 1t
makes no difference so far as the in
dividual is concerned, so long as that
status is fixed, if he regards it consci-
entiously rs an unconstitutional act.
THE CoURT-Suppose his conscience
should lead him to covet his neighbor's
property and take it?
Mr.. MINER-Chat is restrained bv the
higher law.
THE CoURT-Suppose he should covet
his neighbours wife?
Mr.. MINER-That is forbidden by the
deealogue.
THE COURT-Suppose he should covet
his neighbours daughter when he had a
wife, and want that daughter?
Mr.. MNER-That is matter between
them. If they are agreed upon it no.
body else's rights are infringed. 1 am
glad your honor mentioned that.
THE CoURT-The law says that is not
right and calls it crime, and you must
understand that polygamy in this Ter
ritory and everywhere in the United
States is a crime
Mr.. MINER am aware of that.
THE CoURT-You are not the one to
give the definition. The sovereignty of
the American people, through their ser
wants IN Congress, are the parties TO de-
termine what is wrong conduct and
what is right, and after they determine
it, if there is any question made and
the Supreme Court pronOunces it valid,
that is the end OF it.
Mr.. MINER-That is the end of legal
controversy, L admit that; but not the
end of controversy in the forum of con-
science or in the forum Of debate. So
far as the legal branch of the govern
ment is concerned it is final That. l,
as a lawyer, confess. 1 am perfectly
willing to say l will observe this and
have always done it; l reserve to N.Y.
self the right as a citizen to saywhether
these acts are constitutional in my
Judgment or not If the higher tri-
bunals say they are right and | disobey
them, as a matter OF course, l must do
so at my peril, until the political condi-
ton of the country shall reach that Or