Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1888-03-09
The Test Oath Case.

cinct. His yote was challenged, and
he offered TO take what is known as
the Edmuuds law. The Judges re-
fused to administer this oath. Innis
claimed damages in the sum Of &c.,
900. The District Court for Bear
Lake county ordered the complaint
dismissed, and judgment was render
ed in favor of defendants for their
costs. The Edmunds law disfran-
chises bigamists and polygamists, and
the Test Oath law, in addition, dis
franchises those who belong to an or
ganization teaching those crimes.
The Test Oath statute was enacted in
1885. 1t was commended that this
act is in violation OF the first amend
ment to to the Constitution of the
United States, and that it is in con-
fiict with the act Of March ~, 1882,
known IS the Edmnnds law, and APP
plicable to all the Territories. Ever
since tho enactment OF the organic
law by Congress, the power to fix the
qualifications for voting and holding
Office has been a concurrant power OF
Congress and the Territorial Legisla-
ture, the power OF the former being
limited by the Constitution, and the
power of the latter being linn
tied by the Constitution and by
the acts of Congress. The Test Oath
law contains substantially the same
provision as the Edmunds law, and
then further dis9ualifies all who coun-
sci, advise, aid and abet in the com
mission Of the crimes OF bigamy and
polygamy. 1t was contended that by
the enactment of the Edmunds law
Congress undertook to legislate upon
the whole subject Of disfranchisemen
growing out of polygamy, bigamy and
unlawful cobabition. The Supreme
Court took the ground that the act
creates additional disqualifcations,
and is to that extent to be regarded
as an amendment to the organic law.
The first amendment to the Constitu-
ton declares that Congress shall
make no law respecting an establish
ment OF religion, or prohibiting tho
free exercise thereof" and that ''no
religious test shall ever be required
as qualification to any office or pub
lie trust under the United States"
These provisions are limitations upon
the power of Congress, but Congress
could not confer any authority upon
a subordinate Legislative body that
it did not itself have and could not
exercise. The general voice has been
that persons Of every religious per-
suasion should be made equal before
the law. Under law of the United
States it is provided that plural mar
riages shall not be allowed. Can a
man excuse his practices to the CON
trary because of his religious belief?
To permit this would make the pro-
fessed doctrines OF religious belief
superior to the laws of the land, and
in effect to permit every citizen to be-
come a law unto himself Govern
ments could exist only in name under
such circumstances. In disfranchis.
ing members of an organization that
counsels or encourages its members
to commit the crimes of bigamy or
polygamy, the intention of tho Legis-
lature was to withdraw the right of
suffrage from persons who encourage,
aid and abet those who are endeavor-
ing, not by constitutional methods,
but against all law, to overthrow a
sound policy of tho Government, and
one that has existed from its founda-
tion. The right of suffrage is not a
natural right nor an unqualified per-
personal right, but as applied to
Territory it is II right conferred by
law and may be modified or with
drawn by the authority which CON
ferred 1t. 1t has been we'll said that
every Government ought to contain,
in itself, the means Of its own preser.
vation," This, in the judgment of
the Supreme Court, enunciates the
principle which lies at the foundation
of the whole question, and that must
finally determine and set it at rest.
Test oaths are not new in this ooun-
try. They have been prescribed at
different times in our history, and
were justified by some real or sup.
posed public danger or public neces-
sity.
Ii the statute is valid, as the plain |
tiff, Jas. Innis, did not offer to mega
tive the dlsqualifications imposed, his