Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-05-27

| that have looked into this mattel
and have gone beyond the surface
paying little attention TO the falsC
"polygamy'' pretense with which
It has been Vanished. We append
below some OF their utterances.
The New York Sun Of May 2Ist
gives q succinct statement Of the
case, ami says in conclusion:
ITO ms it seems that that this result
can only be deemed satisfactory by
those who believe in The doctrine thai
the end juslities the means, however
Objectionable the latter. Il is mos;
desirable that It should cease, but If
should not be brought about by dis
regarding the plain commands Of the
constitution; and here we have three
judges OF the Supreme Court ofthe
United States, including the Chief
Justice, declaring tina: certain essen
tiaI provisions Of the Eimunds act are
I in contrsvention Of specific limitations
in tho fundamental Law Of the land.
'.No detailed discussion Of the de-
cision is possible without the text Of
the opinions. From the public alb
stncis, however, which are very
melgre, We gather that the majority Of
the court jusiifies the confiscation pro-
ceedIng, on the ground that the prop
cry taken was used 10 sustain the
practice Of polygamy in defiance Of
the national laws. The dissenting
judges concede The power Of Congress
to suppress polyg8my and punish If
as a crime; but they deny that this
can he done in the manner provided
FOR 10y the E5dmunds act, which sub
s;sniialiy adjudred the Mormon
Church guilty., withou; giving j;
Judicial hearing, and then proceeded
to appropriate its property 10 govern
ment uses.
.The case is one Of the most import
ant ever decided by the Supreme
Court"
The New York Telegram of the
22nd remaTAs:
mo one wishes to defend the Nor
mon Church. In cutting away this
excrescence, though, it is well not 10
injure the sound organism Of the pa
ticut, and thus lead TO the breaking
down o. healthy fibre.
I'll the general government may
cunisCa!e the property Of the Mormon
Church Tor crime, here Will the line
be drawn? That alleged Church as a
corporation should not be allowed to
exist when it Advocates polygamy and
de1es tie government. but the I'rin-
ciPle that Congress may order the con-
dscalon OF the property OF a corpora
ton is a dangerous one to admit. The !
next coniisca;iOn Of corporation prop
cry which the general government |
may order might come nearer TO in
vadins the rights Of many who now
approve Of the Edmunds law.
'In the end perhaps it Will be seen
that the view held by Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Field and Lamar,
thai Congress has no such power IN
der the Constitution will be sounder.
as il is undeniably the safer interpre-
tation Of the Constitution"
The Alexandria, Va, Ga,c,ie has
jhis editorial:
While some OF the decisions Of the |
United States Supreme Court yester-
day in tho Virginia coupon cases.
and in the meat inspection case in |
Minnesota, are only just what were
expected, that in the Mormon Church
ease IS surprising. The Legislature OF
tab granted a charter 10 the Mormon
Church under which that Church dur
ING long period acquired nearly
million dollars worth Of property.
Congress not only repealed tha;
charter but escheated all the property
u the Church. 10 The United States.
thus not only passing an ex-post facto
a", and one Impairing the obliga-
ions Of a contract, but taking posses
non Of private property without lust
and though all three Of
hose acts are specially prohibited by
he Constitution, the uuitcd STATES
supreme Court yesterday gave them
Is sanction. The law is plain enough,
'ut the Interpretation thereof passes
human understanding"
The Manchester, y. H. Union
has this clear conception Of the
vital question involved:
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices
Held and Lamar make a clear dis
ine;ion between Mormonisn and
'o!ygamy. Tho other members Of ,
he supreme Cour; fail to make this ,
distinction, and consequently the Ed
hunds anti-polygamy law, with its 5
charitable provision for the confisca- a
ION u church property is sustained. a
low will the partisan journals. which q
re prsising the Republican members t
Z the court, state frankly what would I
e their position il at some future dav, 7
n one preiext or another, there !
hould he a movement to confiscate q
ne property Of some other denomina- v
on in a section OF country which o
appened 10 be under federal rather Y
ian state control? Mormonism is Il
ID, undoubtedly, bad all through in c
lie opinion Of everybody EXCEPT the Il
.ormons themselves, but what has
.at fact 10 do with the legal aspects 4
the case? The Mormons have no :,
ore right TO commit polygamy than :
eihodists or Blpiists or Catholics II
we, butt Is not easy to see whythey G.
we not the same constitutional right Il
their faith, 10 their particular forms &
worship, and to hold church prop Al
y IN excess OF the $4,000 limit pre- ii
-iSed by the Edmunds bill. Il is NJ
I beyond the bounds Of possibility A,
At day may come when this deci- .,
n by a majority Of the Supreme a,
urt judges viii prove to be the :
rst sort OF precedent that could have a.
en- established. 1t is by no means "
tain that the several religious de. IN
limitations Of this country will al de
" remain 50 equally divided as al lie
sent. 1t may not be probable. but 60
certainly IS not impossible that
ne day there may be religious sect ~
strong in this country that its very
eng h may prove a temptation TO
'mTt the repression OF other scots Y,
h things have been, and may be n,
in. When that day comes. what -
lection will there be for religious
'riy save in the Constitution Of the
tied States, and what will that Con
iiion be worth as a protection in Ger