Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-06-06
TIL .alr OF THE LAND.

a law of the land, and says: "What
constitutes a Genuine law of the land
This can De comm nrsurately answered
by-stating the gene al proposition that
the Constitution is tn supreme law OF the
land, and all statutes ma de IN conformity
with its provisiol, IN otter and sPlrlt'
are genuine laws This may be taken
in the main as correct, .ot the question
still remains, What laws 10 and what
laws do not come within the above detinl-
ton? The majority Of people would
say all laws passed Dy Congress
and declared valid by the Supreme
Court. If most people SAID 50, most peo-
pie would be wrong, according to the
Neus. 1t says that the Edmunds law is
unconstitutional, although that law was
passed by the Congress of the United
States to regulate and define certain
things in United States Territory, and
WAS declared constitutional by the
Supreme Court of the United States
That tribunal and such inferior ones as
Congress, in the exercise Of its judgment
and power, might establish, are the only
ones recognized by the Constitution.
But there is another way in which
to determine whether a law Of Congress
is the supreme law Of the land" and
that way is to see if it harmonizes with
the theories of the NeUS and the revela.
tions contained in the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants. Tested by this method
it would be found that the Edmunds law
is grossly unconstitutional, because ''ii
it were a constitutional law there would
be no conflict between it and the revela-
ton on celestial marriage" The author
ity to pass upon the constitutionality OF
the laws of Congress, then, is given to
the believers in celestial marriage, and
not to the Supreme Court. There is a
clash between the Edmunds law
and the revelation on celestial
marriage, and the Constitution
and the revelation on celestial marriage
both being from God, there can be no
clash between them or anything done in
pursuance of them. Still there is a
clash between a law of Congress and a
revelation of God. and hence the law of
Congress is unconstitutional. AS the
NeuS says: at may be argued that the
Supreme Court has decided upon the
right of Congress to pass the Edmunds
act, and that settles the question of con-
stitutionality. 1t settles it in a legal
sense, but not as matter of fact. No
statement from any source in existence
could render the statute referred to con-
stitutional as fact" What, not even a
revelation from God himself? Such
statements are rather sweeping when it
is remembered that God has revealed
himself very frequently in these last
days, and that His ways are past finding
out.
The Neacs' article was written with the
purpose of strengthening the faith of
many of the members of the church, as
many are beginning to discuss the ad
visibility of abandoning a practice which
is in conflict with the laws of their coun-
try, and for the violation Of which many
are suffering to-day, and everything indi-
Gates that many more will suffer on the
same account. There is another reason
why many of the professors of the prac-
tice of polygamy are discussing the ques-
ton of abandoning it, which reason is
that the practice is inharmonious with
that unity of family which Anglo-Saxon
peoples so much love. The system dis
unites the family, and does not bring the
universal chastity that is claimed for it.
1t is breeder of discomfort and jealousy.
and the peace and sanctity of the home
are violated by it. This view is being
taken by many, and already influences
are at work whose object is to create an
impression in favor of the remuneration or
temporary suspension of the law of celes-
tial marriage. Arguments are being
used to that end, in semi-private way,
with view to gaining converts to that
idea," says the News To strengthen
their arguments, those who are
advocating this idea are quoting and
placing much reliance upon revelation
found in the Doctrine and Covenants,
which says: "Let no man break the laws
of the land, for he that keepeth the laws
of God hath no need to break the laws of
the land" To reconcile this with the
continued practice of celestial marriage is
the object of the NelCs' leader, and SO it
declares the Edmunds law is not a law of
the land, or else it would be in harmony
with the Constitution, which was inspired
of God that His will might be done on
earth, and it is His will that celestial
marriage should continue to exist and be
practiced. To abandon its practice
would be for the Saints to do the contrary
of the will of God. One of two things.
then, must be done: The Saints must obey
the will of God or disobey it; or the
United States must repeal the
anti-polygamy laws, or they must dis
obey the will of God. The United States
do not seem disposed to obey the will of
God as declared by the Saints in the
matter of the Edmunds law, while some
of the Mormons seem inclined to obey
the laws of the Government against
celestial marriage. Ii God inspired the
Constitution, it is just possible that He
inspired the Edmunds law, as that law
is constitutional, having been so declared
bv the very means which Cod Dro,,idad