The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-12-19
NO CONSCIENCE NEED APPLY.

When a mau takes the naturalization
oath, he does so either with or without
mental reservation. He swears either
TO obey the Constitution and laws OF
the United States unqualifedly, or re-
serves to himself the right Of dissenting
from laws that seem to him unwise,
aud of disobeying laws that seem i'm
mlral. What does the oath itself con-
template? Can there be found outside |
the Liberal party Of Utah, q man with |
conscience so neglected or judgment so
warped. as to say that the oath creates
an absolute obligation to obey the laws
There can be but one opinion, and that
Is. that such an obligation is not i'm
posed. Could an honest man offer an
allegiance that would follow indiscre-
ton into the meshes Of folly, corruption
into the gu agmires Of national dis
honor and bankruptcy: that would
humble itself into AFFECT slavery at the
bidding of a tyrant, or worship as in
fallible the last guess" Of mediocre
and prejudiced court! Could he, in
fine, assent to an oath that would re-
ouire him to cast aside his conscience
and deny his Godl
And yet, il the oath is to be taken with
out reservation, If il means precisely
what it says without qualification, there
can be no standard above the law there
must be no God with authority greater
than that of Congress; the laws must
be venerated as the mole of wisdom and
the glass of revelation; the Creator
must not presume to vary from the
Revised Statutes on questions of mo-
rality. That pleasing anachronism.
the I'm God We Trust" Of our credul-
Gus ancestors, becomes worse than q
meaningless phrase; it sinks into an
unholy Jest.
Absolute obedience to every law that
finds its way to a statute book, or TO
every decision that issues from court,
would create a race of serfs, fl subjects
for despotism. It cannot be that the
oath of allegiance requires the alien to
bind himself to respect and obey = law
that violates his conscience and asks
him to renounce bis God. Certainly
the founders Of our country, itself
the creature of rights zealously guarded,
did not fght for freedom in order TO
establish tyranny they did not strike the
shackles from their own feet to place
them upon the feet of their children.
The patriots of the past were the
rebels Of their day, and just as GER
tainl a we owe our freedom to the
unlawful agitations of our ancestors,
shall our children owe its perpetuation
to the care with which we guard it.
Bad laws and tyrannicai measures
have resulted from human imperfec-
tons and passions, in the past, and il
would Ie foolish. indeed, not to expect
the same causes to produce similar
results in the future. Where would oul
! liberties be if the Barons had sue
cumbed 10 John at Runnymede? II
Hampden had not resisted unlawful
taxation? II Cromwell and his Parlia
ment had not Ieasserted fundamental
: principles Of the British Constitution
and if the instigatoIs of the Revolution
= of 1888 had not cast out the tyran
t James? Or, if the Colonists had no
E resisted to the bitter end, the en-
croachments of distant Parlismen
/ upon their inherent rights? And yet
these are the men We venerate, Will
J the trucking tools of tyrants hav
e sunk into the ocean of oblivion.
In our own history. what has bee
! the treatment of obnoxious laws
$ What was the fate of the Alien an
5 Sedition laws2 What was tina
o of the fugitive slave law? The gres
e Lincoln himself, on the occasion of b
e first inaugural, said, referring TO tn
: bred Scott decision, That If the polio
J. of the government upon vital question
y affecting the whole people is to be il
{ revocably fixed by decisions of Il
e Supreme Court, the instant they al
made in ordinary litigation betwee
Y parties in personal actions, the Peep
t will have ceased TO be their own ruler
It having TO that extent practically r
Y signed their government into the ham
of that eminent tribunal"
Where is the Catholic or Protestai
who would consider himself bound
the oath to submit TO legislation d
d priving him Of the right 10 worsh
IS God as he sees fit or, where is {
b. Atheist who would not resist to {
be last, an effort to make him conform
5, a religious faith? The doctrines of no
lis resistance and The divine right Of kin
be have fortunately perisned- We belle
Ell it to be beyond controversy that
OF certainty Of the perpetuation of II
ut institutions lies, not IN assiye obedien
re but in discreet resistance. TO is