The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-05-27
WE CONGRATULATE.

We have been told that the Hon. JOHN
HENRY SMITH has given out what he con-
slders an unanswerable argument in favor
OF his being Republican.
He says, in effect, that he believes in hav-
ing a strong centralized government, one
so strong, in fact, that it can step into a
state without waiting for permission or in
VltatIon from the state authorities, and
guarantee him his rights if they are violated
10 give point to the argument he cites a
case: When the Mormons were driven
from Missouri by armed mobs they ap-
pealed to President VAN buren, for aid
His answer was, Your cause is just, but
we can do nothing for you.''
Upon learning that it is good Democratic
doctrine that the federal government shall
not interfere in the affairs of the state
unless in case of anarchy the state gov
eminent is unable to manage the affair
itself, and appeals to the federal govern
ment, Mr.. SMITH declares he prefers a gov
ernment that can interfere whenever it
sees MT to DO so; and as this is more in har-
mony with Republican than with Demo
cratic ideas, he is Republican.
But 1t Is passing strange that Mr. SMITH
should imagine that if a federal army had
been sent into Missouri, the army would
have espoused the cause of the Mormons.
Quite the contrary The federal army
would have exterminated them, if it had
taken part. Whatever else the govern
ment soldiery might have done at that time,
1t Is clear they never would have taken the
side OF people against whom fanaticaI
prejudice was universally so bitter as it
was against the Mormons. To suppose the
soldiers would have fought the enemies of
the Mormons is really astonishing suppo-
sltlon. 1t was war to the knife and knife
to the hilt against the Mormons in those
days. Had the choice of extermination or
remuneration been between the government
and the Mormons, the latter would
have had but one chance, and some
time in their history that chance would
have gone against them. But dealing with
the several states and territories. thew
have forty four chances against extermlna-
ton or the REIMBURSEMENT of their religion.
History has shown that several of these
chances have already been useful to them.
MIR. SMITH ought to rejoice that he lives
IN territory, where his ideas of a strong
centralized government are at least
partially carried out. He has seen
the government step in here, in
order to guarantee to others their
rights as against himself. Some people
consider Mr.. SMITHS marital relations a
serious infringement of their ''rights," and
putting into practice Mr. SMITHS theory of
government, they induce this ''strong fed
eral power" to step in and punish him and
MS co-rellgionists. For this application of
the Republican idea that the federal gov
eminent may dc at least partially, in ter
ritory, what he claims it should have the
power to do, in state also, Mr. SMITH is,
no doubt, duly and truly grateful. There's
nothing like the qualification of seeing ones
principles put into operation
Again, some people were greatly con-
cerned in regard to the property owned by
the church of which Mr. SMITH is a CON
scientious member They induced this
"strong federal power" to step IN once
more and guarantee them their ''rights,
against the church to which Mr.. SMITH
belongs. The Republican doctrine of
national sovereignty was carried out,
against the earnest protest of thirty seven
Democrats, who preferred the chance of
retirement from public life rather than
deviation from Democratic principles
against even the Mormons. Four Demo
cratic supreme court judges likewise took
the view that Congress had no right to step
N n n nh
fscate property. But the Republican doc
trlne again prevailed, giving Mr.. SMITH
one more opportunity to telicitate himself
upon the triumph of the principles he ad-
Finally, some people hereabouts are an5-
lous to have this ''strong federal power,
step into the territory once more, and to
guarantee to them their sacred future
rights" by DISTINGUISHING all the mem |
bers who belong to the same religious Or
ganization with Mr.. SMITH. A few even
demand that Mr.. SMITH and his co-relie,on- |
lists shall not be permitted to acquire title
to land, and that the titles already held he
attacked until final bankruptcy, shall
oyerwhelm both rich and poor in the organ
zation. We trust that Mr.. SMITHS ideas
Of strong central government will never |
be carried out in this or any other case.
The Democratic doctrine is altogether
different from that taught by Mr. SMITH.
It is, first, that the individual is sovereign.
No power on earth can interfere with him
f he minds his own business. He is not a
subject of anybody or anything, but is an
king over himself in alliance
With others of equal rank. The govern
nent" is his hired servant and must do
lis bidding, that is, the bidding of
himself and his fellows. Second, that the
states do not derive any of their powers
rom the federal government. If there be
my proposition that Democracy pronounces
n favor Of, it is the natural right of every
rec community to govern itself Third.
hat the federal government derives it's
authority from a grant of power to it by
he several states, and can do only what the
tates have expressly authorized it to do.
For the preservation Of personal liberty
nd the conservation of the autonomy of
he states, the Democratic party has labored +
ncessantly in the past, not always with
erfection, indeed, but without that party
he reserved rights of both the states and
ne people would long since have been de-