Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-02-24

! nor any other Grimm. and i- -eg1Tde'
!. ne Consultation and Edrs. as fste1prct
cd blythe courts. as the suPresse td1 Z.
The land, any teachings Of the ohsTe'
10 the contrary noticithstands-o."
Its clear froos tins that the appel
liant had committed no overt aci
against the law, nor aided nor advised
others to do so, and, further, that he
had sworn he would not. And yet
the whole argument of the Court to
excuse their decision Is directed
against the practice OF ,polygamy,
the carrying into effect of doctrines
and tenets which are opposed to the
criminal laws of the country, as
though the appellant had been
.ound guilty OF this otfense.
In commenting Upon the test oath,
the Court says:
'ewfth the exception OF persons un-
der guardianship or Of unsound mind
it simply excludes from the privilege
Of voting. or Of holding any Office Of
honor. trust or profit, those who have
been convicted OF certain offenses, and |
those who advocate a practical resist
Ance to the Laws Of the Territory and
justify and approve the commission OF
crimes forbidden by IT,"
This is perfectly astounding. The
objection to the test oath is not
founded upon anything thus ex-
pressed by the court, but upon the
from the privilege of vot-
ing and holding office Of citizens
who have neither been convicted
Of those offenses nor have commit
ted either Of them, nor have advo-
Gated a practical resistance to the
laws, nor have justified or approved
The commission Of crimes forbidden (
1y the laws. D
Here again it is evident that the
Court have failed to grasp the Ian Z
suage and purport and effect of the {
est oath law, or they have mis- t
tated it Intentionally. They have
1T out Of their statement the very
on which this whole con- !
ention has turned, narHely, the I
'ower Of the legislature to punish !
r deprive Of political rights and v
rivileges citizen who possesses d
II the statutory qualifications and a
Tho has never broken the laws. n
imply because he belongs to an o
some members Of t
hitch, it is claimed, haze broken .
he laws and teach and aid in their q
iolation. -.r n
The most charitable. hypothesis Il
This connection is that the Court Z
Kissed the main question involved y
the controversy. That they ii
ere so intent on supporting meas
res for the suppression of polygam-
Is practices, they overlooked the !
question as to whether a
innocent citizen can he pun n
he'd and deprived OF rights because u
the acts Of Others. That mere =,
embership in a church, which is "a
Id to teach practices condemned N
the law, although that member di
Zip does not involve the commits y
on of any of those practices, may fe
'erate to the exclusion OF law re
pporting citizen from the political Ct
yhts to his fellows. =:
This was the case before the n,
ourt. This the Court has not q
1ched or alluded TO. This must te
pressed upon the attention Of the - -
ghestlegal tribunal of the country. cr
ID a decision must be obtained on an
hich there can be no mistake. The rs
after cannot be permitted to end m
re. There is too much involved rr
it. The all-important principle pl
religious liberty is at stake. and do
cry religious society in America IN
ould be interested in bringing 1t M,
a final issue The ground will co
We to be gone over again. so
bi,