The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-02-13

consisting of disfranchisement, exclusion
from the benefits of trial by jury, denial OF
the right to acquire title to land, etc.,
should be provided by legislative enact
ment without permitting any trial OF the
persons whose minds are alleged thus to be
imbued with some pernicious notion that
disqualifies them for citizenship. For just
as surely as they are tried, it is alleged they.
will testify that they entertain no ideas
antagonistic to to the requirements OF cltl-
zenship, and their lives on the whole are so
craftily ordered that no criminal actions
can be proved upon them as class. mas
much, however, as these people have regu-
larly voted against those who announced
their intention to have them disfran-
chised, it is clear to the would be
disfranchisers that the people
are not altogether American in their ideas,
and it would immensely improve them II
they should be thrust down from enjoying
the privileges and immunities others
possess in the land of their birth or adop-
ton.
This, we believe, is careful and dlspas-
| sionate statement of the argument at pres
ent used by the small number of lndlvld-
usls here who advocate the disfranchlse-
ment of nearly all voters in Utah thai have
opposed the radical wing of the minority
party.
If the constitution, in the clause declar-
ing that Congress shall make no law re-
specting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof" IS
not intended to prevent Acknowledgement
or other punishment for supposed oellel'
then it has no meaning whatever.
Unless the conscience of the Jew is held
as sacred as that of the Christian then the
whole scheme of human liberty in this
country is sheer deiusion and hypocrisy
Neither would the crime of disfranchis
ing whole community of electors for the
supposed state of their conscience be
rendered more respectable if the whole
nation should join in the outrage. The
majority may not commit crime at its whlu
or convenience. ''If all mankind minus
one,'' says Mill, 'were of one opinion
mankind would be no more justified II
silencing that one, than he, if he had the
power would be justified in silencing man
kind"
Liberty" says LIEBER, 'has not in
frequently been defined as consisting II
the rule of the majority; or, it has beer
, said, where the people rule, there is lib
erty. The rule of the majority, of itself
, indicates the power of certain body; bu
power is not liberty. Suppose the malorlt.
: bid you drink hemlock, is there liberty TO
you! Or, suppose the majority give ava.
) liberty and establish despot. We nigh
say, with great truth, that where tn
, minority is protected, although the maiorit
; rule, then, probably, liberty exists. Blu
in this latter case it is the protection, or il
other words, rights beyond tne reach OF tn
| maiorit,, which constitute iberty-no
t the power Of the majority. There can b
no doubt that the majority ruled IN tn
French massacres of the Protestants; wa
/ there liberty in France on that account
All despotism, without standing army
: must be supported or acquiesced in, by tn
: majority. It could not stand otherwise"
There is a lesson in these words, worth
e of consideration by all Americans, bu
most of all by those whose ignorance o
e evil purpose is so great that they urge dis
: franchisement for the so-called crime Of be
lief