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

COMMENTS on the decision OF the
SUPREME Court OF the United States
in the Mormon Church property
cascappear in most Of the American
uewsI pers. As a rule they are
copies, some o. them verbatim IT,
productions without credit from 4
few Of the leading journals which
are stran siy aut-"N0mon." They
oisp ~ that ignorance Of the real
question, underlying the litigation.
which is 80 prevalent in this coun-
try.
There 4 scarcely an editor in the
land who understands the "AIor-
moR' situation or who has studied
the lawsof Congress relating to Utah
and its PEOPLE. Nearly all Of them
peak Of this decision as affirming
be constituionality OF the Ed
munds Act, which vas passed
IN lS,2, aud jump 10 the
conclusion that it gives the death
blow 20 p3iygamy' and lisurganizes
the ''NIormon'' Church.
Many OF thcs. comments are
luiicr,us 10 one who is acquainted
with the facts and understands the
natural and legal effects Of the law
and the decision. The law which
has been passed upon is that COM
monty known as the EGmuuds.
Tucker act Of 1857. and should Eut
he couf1anGeI with the Edinuuds
act Of ls,2. line power Of Congress
to iesis!Rte against poiygamy In the
Territories was no. the issue ill.,
volvei in the case. That has been
decided for a long imc. II is
strange that the eiitcrs of the
Uaitei Sales are not familiar with
this fact and lameuta5lo that they
SHOULD be 50 ignorant Of the i'm
Iortant national questions thar are
affected in this instance.
The power o. Congress to pass
laws for the suppression Of ToIyg-
a ~ was not Questioned 10y cOun- 4
sci appearing in this case or
ush il u the Mormon" Church. I
The real Issue was the power Of /
Congress 10 repeal an act Of the /
Territorial Legislature which was .
IN The Ha-gre Of Il contract. and 10 ]
take from a religious corporation or I
association, property contributed for /
specific purposes and e,cheat it 10 !
the Government for other USES.
A great deal Of ignorant abuse
Is hurlei q. Chief Justice Fuller
and also at Justices Field ami
LAMAR because they dissent from /
the opinion OF the majority. They
are represented as shielding poIyg-
amy and supporting the "tNin
relic, :" and many other stupid accu- /
s2tions are made against them. The
truth is, they simply defended
plain constitutional principles anu
restrictions. And in doing so they
did not hesitate because the people
and institution which the legislation
under review sought to dcspoiE |
We're unpopular and charged with
cDIutenaucing crime.
Il seems useless TO reason with
persons who are blind "a with pre-
JUDGE and Indifferent 20 facts. But
the press Of this country ought 10
! ause before endorsing a m Jvement
10 confscatc corporate property anu
divert it from it, original uses. he
rause il is alleged that ii MAJ Be | |
lsei by the disincOrporatud society {
10 prOm0te something forbidden Ey :
he law. IL
There is not any evidence that II I
he Mormon" Church were 10 t.
ain possession Of the pieces Of real l
lroperty which the decision OF the
supreme Court affects. or the ucr- .,
nal property which the Utah 4,
ours declared forfeit but which =
lac law does not mention. they n
would be usei ia any way to pro- \
note or perpetua;e any practice that b
contrary to law. Aud If there b
rrrr- il Is a grave question whether tC
his probability would bc sun- o.
lent Justification for the new de. el
arturo in American Jurisprudence &
'hich escheats to the United States n
-operty on which the Government -
Is not the slightest claim, in equity ..
ou any just principle or recog- u,
lei preeeient. y.
And we will state here, without CO
lie slightest hesitation, that the Il,
Of the "Normon'' Church W
every dollars worth Gifts property. pr
nj aud personal, would not affect it
.e Poiygamy question one iota. II 50
e "Mormon'' people were still 50
eacnlng, practising and pernetu- 81
ing polysamy, the amount Of the al
oFld!y possessions Of the Church 81
the entire lack OF them. would -
Z ailecs the matter in any way -,
The olisiHoorporation of IT.
C Church, rs we have heretosore s,i,
own, does not dis3rgaai,e the su,
lurch. Il remains intact. 1t is pu
9 weakened thereby. It's priuci- hal
s abide, It's spirit is still active. the
living force is not ab1ted. is,
Il Congress can snnul legislative wit
which ism the nature Of n con- POI
CT without violence to the ma. am an.
nal Constitution, let that 20 .ue
good law. II the Supreme -,
urt FOX purposes Of so-caIIed "pub- H.,
policy +" sustains that con- b,v
'Ssional proceeding in face of the bay
institution, let that also 60, rs 4 hay
iicial decision that will answer pla.
: purpose OF law. But it docs NOT T
low that this VIII make sound ,;a
a. constitutional or right the Sta,
lng OF property that belongs To :,
body Of people forming tbe 49,
-urch so disincorpoEated, and es. No.,
eating it to the Government mo,
at Is, in plain language. national fror
'bery. Con
me excuse offered for it viii not Uni
nd the light Of reason, Justice or to s.
ma policy. Even if it were true the
! the property thus taken by force erty
N a religious body, might be used Den
promote an unlawful practice. , ,,iAl
! : q very poor pretext for giving tbs
3 great Government power To n-o,