Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-01
THE IDAHO oATHs.


Idaho, that the laws passed by the ldan
Legislature last winter in regard to eleC
tions and the qualifications OF electors ar
constitutional, is somewhat OF 4 surprise
The laws were practically placing relig
ious test upon electors, although they wer
so worded as to save such a
appearance. Practically they debar al
believers in polygamy from voting. with
out regard TO whether they are violation
of any law That the elective franchise
is not one of those "inalienable rights
spoken of in the Declaration of lndepend
cnce, all know. The Supreme Court ha
held that it is privilege, but not right
Such being the case. no doubt IT is OF
this theory that Chief Justice Have.
holds that the Legislature of idaho car
confer it with whatever qualifications
and restrictions they may choose
Granted that the elective franchise
is privilege and not a right, still the
fact should never be lost sight OF that all
American institutions rest upon the eXer-
else OF this privilege. Such being the
case, the aim should rather be to extend
than to restrict the elective franchise,
and sound policy would dictate that peo-
pie should never be deprived OF it save
for some act, never for opinions sake. In
America, 50 rooted has become the idea
that the elective franchise should be un-
limited and unqualified that whenever Il
property qualification for voters has
been suggested, it has met with
such instant and universal condemnation
that it has never been urged at all
Even in England, the country where
property decides upon mans right to
the elective franchise and also his right
to consideration as man, the tendency
is constantly in the direction OF universal
suffrage regardless OF property qualifica-
tions. The Idaho legislation is the very
reverse OF this spirit which prevails in
England, and is a reverting to the spirit
Of the DAYS of anti-Catholic legislation in
England, and is a revival of the anti
Masonry spirit which once held sway in
this country; and such a spirit is always
reactionary and detrimental to the cause
which it is sought to further That which
has kept our country 80 free from those
social agitations which frequently occur
in European countries, and from break
ing forth in sanguinary conflicts, has been
the safety valves OF American institutions
free speech, free press, and free actions
within the confines of the law. In coun-
tries where repression reigns the stopping
up Of these valves always produces that
low murmur of discomfort which, when it
seeks a vent, seeks it in bloody revolu-
tions. Nothing so cools the ardor of
an angry crowd as letting such
crowd steam and puff and find a vent for
their pent up feelings in inflamatory
speeches and harmless demonstrations.
This truth was recently illustrated on the
occasion OF the death OF Victor Hugo,
when the Communards worked off their
passion in display and not in the erection
of barricades, which would have been
the case had the Government resorted to
the old methods of Louis Napoleon and
his predecessors. This truth was illus
trated in France some years ago when
universal amnesty was granted to all |
who had participated in the Communistic
insurrection of 1871, and such men as
Rochefort were allowed to return 10 Paris
and preach their wild and revolutionary
doctrines Rochefort is far more harm |
less in Paris than he would be in Geneva |
or Soho Square.
But it is said that the Idaho legislation.
while it may be extreme is justified bv
the fact that polygamy and unlawful CO.
habitation are becoming so universal and
that Mormonism is spreading so fast in
the West, that something had to be done.
Certainly something must be done when
crime is becoming common, but the
thing to do is to so vigorously enforce
the law against the criminals that others
will be deferred from committing like
crimes. That man does not
hold an act declared a crime by the
statute in moral aversion but rather
otherwise is not sufficient ground for de-
priving him of his vote. When he pro-
ceeds from opinion to action, then the
case is entirely changed, and what before
may have been moral obtuseness be-
comes crime, and should be punished. ,
On the theory that men are a danger to i,
society because they hold opinions which, :
( put in practice, would be crime and
must be deprived OF the elective fran !
,hise on account of such opinions, the
question naturally arises, How is the
State to determine what opinions are dan Y
yerous and what beneficial to the State so i.
ong as opinions do not find expression in ;,
action, but only exist in the minds ofmen? r
The legitimate object, and the only justi- )
ication d,government is TO regulate the ;,
'elations OF man 10 man, and To so regu-
ate them that to each citizen shall be !,
eft the greatest liberty consistent with the >
liberty and rights OF every citizen, and :
lot the regulation of the citizens beliefs :.
md opinions :;
The same objection exists to the Idaho =
est oath that exists to all test caths. If g
itizens are so bad as to justify the with :,
rawal OF the elective franchise from g
hem, and the administration of u test ,,
ath TO determine their fitness or unfit :.
ess, then these same citizens will :,
Iultify themselves and subscribe TO :,
he test oath that they may con-