Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1888-02-14

saw fit to 60. But here is an act of
the legislature of Idaho, which is on
ly a Territory, requiring a man to
swear to his belief.
JUDGE BUCK-This test oath was
passed before the Edmunds- Tucker
law. You claim that the jurisdictions
were concurrent; do you claim sthat
this legislation is necessarily repealed
by this act?
Mr.. JoHNsoN-No. 1t depends
not upon the order but upon the SUI.
perior jurisdiction. The legislature
could not limit the power of Congress.
JUDGE HAys-Then we are to un.
derstand you, if the Court shall find
that the evident intent of Congress
was to go to the full extreme to
which in their judgment this subject
should be carried, then this bill be.
comes void?
Mr.. JoHNsoN-That is what l con-
tend for. The first amendment to
the Constitution provides that Con.
gress shall pass no law prohibiting the
free exercise of religion.
Extracts from the opinions Of eminent
statesmen and authors were read to
show the full scope and meaning Of
these words. The speaker closed his
argument with an eloquent appeal for
religious liberty.
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr.. SruLL.-Had the legislature
the power to enact this law which
prescribes the Test Oath? That is the
only question before this Court. We
have no right to inquire whether it
was right to do so.
The general authority of the legis-
lature is found in that section of the
organic act which includes, "all right.
full subjects of legislation" But
there is more specific power. Sec
ton 1860, Statutes of the United
States, says: At all subsequen,
elections CATER the 6rsD in any Terri
tory, TIE QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS
and of holding Office shall be such as
may be prescribed by the Legislative
assembly of each Territory"
The right of suffrage is not natur-
al right, nor is it an absolute, unquali-
fed, personal right. See McCrouy
on Elections, Sec 3. Blair VS. Ridg.
ley al Mo 63) was case involving
the validity Of test oath. 1t Was the
iron-clad oath OF loyalty prescribed to
voters and Office holders by the legis-
lature of that State and concerning
transactions growing out of the war.
That case after full argument Mont
gomery Blair was plaintltf) was de-
cided by a unanimous Court. They
say: "The right to vote is not vest.
ed; it is purely conventional and may
be enlarged or restricted, granted or
withheld, with or without fault. The
state has full power to pass laws, re-
strictive and exclusive, for the
preservation and promotion of the
common interests, as political and so.
cial emergencies may from time tc
time require, though, in certain cases
disabilities may directly flow as &
consequence"
The qualifications OF voters are mo-
uniform in this country; some Of the
States require payment of taxes, some
registration. The laws deprive man,
citizens of suffrage, yet they are sus
tanned by the Courts. See II, Pick
1855, SO Miss. 735, and 80 Ais. II.
Whenever enactmen.s prescribing
the right to vote have been held in
valid it has been because they were il
conflict with the provisions of a con
ssitution. See Storey on Const., sec
5S1.
i There is nothing in the first amend
ment to the Federal Constitution
which can give protection to the
plaintiffs or to those who practis,
what is forbidden by statute. Rey'
nolds VS. United States, SO U. S., 145
1t is not true that because Con.
gress has lrgislated upon a subjec
therefore the Territory is prohibited
The Legislature Of he Territory mus
not contradict the act of Congress
but it may extend it. Congress en-
acts law concerning Water Rights
Tho lar;sloturo ~ Tj.bo f.l NJ