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

of the United States IN relaIlon
the Idaho Test Oath case. We we
surprised when the purport of Il
decision reached Us by press iii
patch. We are much more surprise
after reading the opinion Of ii
Court. Our establishment is tw,
fold: First, that the Court did NJ
seize upon points that might hav
been taken, which would have bee
aFIeast plausible; and, second, tina
they have entirely avoided and ut
terly ignored the question on whicl
the whole case turns.
That question was not whether I
person who breaks the law in rela
ton to polygamy and polygamcui
practices, or who aids and abets
oounsels or advises its violation, may
be disffanchised. No such hypO-
thesis was presented to the court.
And yet this is made the basis oil
the whole argument INDUCED in by
the court
Their citations from the decisions
in the Reynolds and Murphy cases
have little or no bearing upon the
issue IN this case. They relate to
the practice of poIygamy. But in
cidentally they touch on the ques-
lion Of belief and the freedom of
opinion, and, so far as they are rele-
want to the present question, they
are dead against the conclusion
which the Court has reached. They
declare that it is only overt acts
against peace and good order that
can be touched by legislation,
and that liberty of faith and wor-
ship are secured to all religionists
By the Constitution and the institu-
lions Of this republic.
The appellantin this case was not
a bigamist or pOlygamist, and he did
not aid or abet, counsel or advise
anyone to commit an offense against
the laws. He was simply a member
of Church some other members of
which, it is claimed, were polyga-
mists and did aid and abet the prac-
tee OF polygamy. The question was,
whether he could be punished or
deprived Of any political rights or
privileges because Of the overt acts
ofother people, when it could not be |
shown, and was not even claimed or |
pretended, that he had committed |
any such overt act himself. This
question the Court has not even
alluded to.
The decision, then, is not a de-
cision Of the matter in litigatiOn,ex
cept that the Court says the test
oath law is not in violation of the
Constitution, and yet in giving
their reasons for arriving at this
conclusion, they are silent upon the
facts and arguments which demon
its unconstitutionality.
And this is not all. The Court
the claim OF counsel for the
appellant and goes so far as to put
language into their mouths which
is the exact opposite Of their words.
For instance the Court says:
at is assumed by counsel Of the De-
toner that because no mode Of wor-
ship can be established or religions
ienets enforced in this country, there
lore any form Of worship may be fol-
Owed and any tenets, however de-
structive Of society. may be held and
advocated, if asserted TO be a part of
he religious doctrines Of those adyo-
,ating and practlcing them. But moth
ng is further from the truth. Whilst ,
egislation for the establishment OF a
eligion is forbidden, and its free ex-
ircise permitted, it does not follow
hat everything which may be so
allied can be tolerated. Crime is not
he less odious because sanctioned by
that any particular sect may desig-
ate as religion"
That counsel for the defendant
i'd not ''assume" this, may be readily
sen from the following extract
'om their brief, p. IS: E
From the foregoing it conclusively I
ppesrs that man may entertain any =
siigious.opinion. belief, faith, or senti- I
lent he chooses, and there is no civil l
over or authority that can in any
az, directly or indirectly, restrain or n
Iterfere with that opinion, nor de- "
rive him OF any OF the rights or Of
-ivleges Of citizenship because there n
.---.. lie
at is equally clear that he may. in :,
lie free exercise OF his religion wor- =,
ip according 20 the dictates Of ~
5 conscience and perform such
sts,' and engage in such practices -
he may deem most acceptable to CT
) Creator presided he commits no DC
iT1inaL egezSe. It is only when he as
5 done an act that the law has de- as
red 10 be criminal that he can be al
nished or deprived of any right de
nmon TO his fellow-citizens, and TT
N he is not punished, or thus de- 70.
we'd, because OF his opinion but be- hi
lse Of the commission Of the act -
ich has been forbidden BY law. -
is not a crime. and in this country
not be made a crime. TO belong TO -Ao
particular church, and this. as we ", vi
IL hereafter see. even though it iili
n bigamy and polygamy. No uir
islative authority has ever attempt ais
10 make such law. The full ex- dai
to which a statute nights go would diff
to punish the act of bigamy or on,
Tgamy when committed. bul
he appellant, in ''the free exercise tbe
aligion, y was entitled to his men, the
hip in the Mormon Church. He orc
committed no act forbidden by y
Therefore 1e proriaons of the .
10 statute di.fTanehisi1g and de6ar- Ia, ,lu
him from Office are itaoonstitu- nav
III and poid. ms
'e state, without the slightest por'
tation, that this position of nell
learned counsel is in,nrscnob,o pro'
anDot be overturned by law or ooai
C. The only thing the Court tain
d do against it was to misunder- . ,..
d or misrepresent it, and that III
have done one or the other is -
able. They say counsel for the an..
ndant have assumed that any a..
ofiworship may be followed, nror
sver destructive of society, ifas- Inn
d. TO be part of religious doc. men
, 80 COUNSEL ace1ally say COVE
a man may worship accordino