Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-04-09
A CONTEMPORARY AND A COM
MISSION.

lOf ana cannon makes more Cl6aT Jlldu
ever the need of Legislative Commits
sion for Utah This must finally settle
the question, for "morning contem-
porary' has said so, and who knows so
well these things as this same morning
contemporary" And then, again, the
morning contemporary" says that "the
assertion that those who advocate
a Commission desire only to de-
stroy a church, is the carping of dema
gogues." Will contemporary" tell us
whether this carping of demagogues has
anything to do in relation to the raising
of German carp? All who do not think
and speak after the manner of a "morn-
ing contemporary" are termed dema-
gogues, while those who do think and
speak after its manner are, by it, deemed
demi-gods.
Would a Legislative Commission make
the people of this Territory who are not
breaking any laws lose their sympathy
for some who are, and make them active
aiders of the officers? Rather, would it
not have a contrary effect? While
the way in which many who
are breaking the laws and run
ming and hiding and denying
their families is disgusting them more
than anything else could, and they begin
to feel that they are bearing the odium
which the others bring, and they are be-
ginning to think of casting it off. A Com
mission would but fasten and make solid
the bands which are beginning to loosen.
Yet, morning contemporary" says it
must not be forgotten that Utah is a Ter
ritory and not State. 1t is not forgotten /;
and it should not be forgotten that to
shut the only avenue by which the people
may come to think and act for them
selves, is to make them still more alien
than morning contemporary declares
they now are. Utah is Territory, and as
a morning contemporary" wishes to i'm
press that fact on all, let us see whom
its Commission. On March 3Ist,
1885, it spoke of "those good Dem
ocrats, Stephen A. Douglas and Frank P.
Blair" as authorities for a Commission.
Stephen A. Douglas having come sud-
denly into favor as an authority with a
morning contemporary" it may be well
to know some of his views as to the rights
of Territories. The views here quoted are
from Douglas article entitled, Popular
Sovereignty in the Territories" which APP
peared in Harper'S Magazine for Septem-
ber, 1859, and were expressed after quot
ing from Buchanan's letter of acceptance
1.-The founders of our system of government
subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the
people of the Territories and Colonies as poll
tical Communities which were entitled to a free
and exclusive power of legislation in their Pro
vincial legislatures, where their representation
could alone be preserved in all cases of taxa
tion and internal polity. This right pertains to
the people collectively as a law abiding and
peaceful community, and not to the isolated in
dividuals who may wander upon the public do
main in violation of law"
These views of Douglas seem in favor
of local government by the people, and
are as old as our government itself.
The one thing in Utah against which
the laws of Congress have been aimed is
polygamy, and a morning contem5
porary" says: owe believe, under that
fear, that one of the crimes of the Nor
mon creed is bound to CO." This crime
is polygamy, is it not? Have the read
ing and study of life time not told the
editor of morning contemporary that
half, if not three-fourths, of the legislation
of Europe has been enacted to enforce an
OF right ideas, and that such
legislation has only retarded their accept
ance? Is not this the very line which
the domain of legislation from |
the domain of speculation, the enforce
ment of the law and the enforcement of
an acceptance of special ideas? The
way in which to inculcate right ideas, or
any ideas, is by argument and illustra-
ton and not by forcing ideas to be ac-
,epted, or rather seemingly accepted.
And why should the 'thus saith" a
morning contemporary be accepted
rs final and beyond controversy
n preference to the "thus saith
he Lord" of the party to whom "morn-
ng contemporary" is so opposed, not
merely in it's disobedience to the law, but
o its right to think or be? Is not the one
Is much un-American as the other, al
hough one is secular and the other claims
o be oracular?
But morning contemporary tells
is readers there are other reasons why the
government should vindicate its laws
lere speedily. 1t would be most gra-
ious thing if it would give some of its
ther reasons than the one it has always |
iven, which is only the famous argu-
aentam Gd because The love of a "morn-
1g contemporary for liberty is so great {
hat it wants it all for itself, and thinks it ,
an dispense it better than others can use i
!. Mil has been considered the modern {
postle OF liberty, and in speaking of the I
anne system against which morning
is fighting said:
LET them send missionaries, If they please q
preach against il; and let them, by any fair
leans (of which silencing the teachers is not [
ne,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines
mong their own people. If civilization has got '
le better of barbarism, when barbarism had q
he world to ITSELF ii is too much TO profess to =
e afraid lest barbarism after having been {
rly got under, should revive and conquer civ q
ization. A civilization that can thus succumb I,
its vanquished enemy must first become so n
egenerate, that neither its appointed priests i
I'd teachers, nor anybody else" fnot even
morning contemporary "has the capacity y
viii take the trouble to stand up for il. If =,
is be so, the sooner such civilization re- u