Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-06-19
THEIR POSITION.

The Mormon people and press are con-
tinually protesting their love of the Con
stitution, claiming, among other things,
that to uphold that sacred instrument is
a part of their divine mission. That the
claim is sincere we do not deny, but
that the claim means any more than that
the Constitution was formed and adopted
by the States for the special protection
of the Mormon people that they might
administer and control this Government
in accordance with their religious notions,
We do deny. As an instrument to protect all
alike without regard to religious or anti
religious opinions, they do not care for it..
To them there is no distinction between a
religious right and a political right; in
fact political rights with them are relig-
ious rights, and the claim of the Mormon
church in politics is the right to dictate
in all things, temporal and spiritual, poll
tical and religious. To them the Consti-
tuition is the guaranty of this right, and
any construction of that instrument, even
by the very Supreme Court provided for
| in that instrument itself for the constru-
ing of it and all things done in pursu-
ance of the powers therein granted, which
in any way abridges what they deem
their rights, is to them unconstitutional.
They arrive at this conclusion by saying
that the Constitution is the guaranty of
their rights, and they claim certain
| things as rights, and anything which con-
flicts with those rights must be unconsti-
tutional, no matter by whom the conflict
is allowed, be it the Supreme Court of
the United States, or some other court
or person. They do not recognize the
fact that the State exercises some rights
that the citizen as an individual does not,
and cannot. The rights of the State are
| derived from the citizens, and experience
has proven that it would be inconsistent
with the general welfare to allow to each
individual the right to set up his own
likes or dislikes in such matters. Among
the more important of these
rights, are the right to coin
money and declare its value and the
right to say upon what basis the family
shall be founded, the family being the
unit of the State. For the State not to
have the power to determine and define
the status of the family is for the State to
be deprived of the power to say what its
unit shall be. The Mormous say that
the family, with its relations OF husband
and wife, father and mother, child and
parent, is one of Gods divine institu-
tons, and that in their case He has re-
vealed what His will is in regard to its
formation here on earth, it being a pro-
totype of what it will be in heaven.
That is the Mormon position so far as the.
family is concerned, and they claim that
in this position they are protected by the
Constitution and what is more, they
claim that the Constitution was in
spired to protect them in this
right as we'll as some others. Is
1t not plain to see why the Ed
munds law and the proceedings there
under are unconstitutional from the Nor
mon standpoint? To them any law of
Congress Or any decision of the Supreme
Court which does not uphold them in |
their claims, no matter what those claims /
may be, will necessarily be unconstitu-
honal. If religious right claimed by
them conflicts with a similar right |
claimed by some one else, that other must |
be subordinated to their right, theirs
having a divine sanction. The Nor
mon position as to what laws
are constitutional and what are not.
may be summed up as follows:
Any law or decision which forbids them
to put into practical operation any tenet
of their religion, no matter how much
the practical operation of that tenet may
conflict with or trespass upon the rights
OF the State or of any of its citizens, that
law or decision will be unconstitutional
to them rs hindering the work or thwart-
ing the will of God on earth. The will
Of God as believed by the Mormons is
the test of a constitutional right.