Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-05-29

This prorogativc n parcHsp 1il1d is IN
herCut in the supreme power ~ every
state, whether that power y lodged ~ y
royal porlon or in the legislature.
Bulin this country the supreme POW.
er h lodged neither in royal person
nor In the Legislature; but NJ stated ny
bancroft, In the law alone. and 10 the
Constitution that supremacy il ue-
iiuvd. 80
IL il true tina, the decision Of the
Court Is qualified by the expression,
that nunl,ss restraint by constitutional
Limitations, the Legislature possesses
ali tho power In this regard which the
sovereign possesses IN England" but
this IL another instance Of the reversal
Of the principles of our Government
This argues that the Legislature l.
already In possession " power, ana
can exercise that power 10 tho fun, IN.
les II l. restrained by constitutional
Limitations. Whereas the truth II
that The Legislature has no power VI
nil, IL possessed Of no authority nj all,
aud can exercise none except NJ u 4
granted. The Constitution plainly de-
rlafes "rhe powers not delegated to the
United States tiy the Constitution nor
prohibited by II 10 the States, are re-
served 10 the States respectively, or 10
the people" The expressed doctrine
Of the Constitution IA, that tho powers
not delegated are reserved. The doc.
trlne Of this decision implied, II not cx'
pressed II, that the powers not prohibi.
ted are uossrsscd. This In itseli would
-. a d
ously 10 question the correctness Of the
decision but there IL laid against u, by
the Chief Justice, the additional
evidence that the Legislature y res.
trained by the very constitutional
limitations suggested by the Court.
The Chief Justice, with Justice
Field and Lamar J1ncurrlng, dissentcd
from the decision. In his dissenting
opinion he speaks as follows
In my opinion, Congress il restrained,
not merely by thu limitations expressed
In the Constitution, but also by tho Hb.
scnco of any grant Of power, expressed
or implied In that INSTRUMENT. And no
such power ~ that involved In the act n
Congress under consideration IL conferred
by tho Constitution nor Is any clause
pointed out ~ IT, Legitimate source. I
regard II of vital consequence, that nbso-
lutte power should never 10 conceded a.
belonging under our system NJ govern
mont 10 any ono " It, departments.
The legislative power Of Congress IL dole
gnted sud not Inherent. and II therefore
limited. agree that the power 70 mako
neodml rules and regulations Tor the
Territories necessarily cOmprohonds tho
power 10 suppress crime; aud II n lmma.
iorinl even though that crime assumes
the form " q religious belief or creed.
Congress has the power 10 oxtirpato
polyganiy In any OF the Territories, by
The enactment Of a criminal code directed
TO that und; but II Il not authorized un-
der tho cover OF that power 10 soizo aud
conilscaic the property of persons, indi.
ylduals, or corporations, without Office
found, because they may have been
guilty " criminal practices.
Tho doctrine Of cV-prcs II one Of con-
rlruciion and not Of administration. ny
u u fund devoted 10 u particular charity
Il applied to cognate purpose, and IL
the purpose for which this property was
accumulated was such ~ has been de-
picicd, Il cannot be brought within tho
rule of application 10 u purpose ns nearly
a possible resembling that denounced.
Nor II there hero any counterpart In Com
grcssiOnal power 10 tho exercise OF the
royal prcrogaiiyc In the disposition Of
charity. Ifthis property was accumu.
lated for purposes declared Illegal that
does not Justify It's arbitrary disposition
by judicial legislation. In my Judgment
It's diversion under this act Of Congress IL
In conirayention ofspcclhc limiiall0A In
the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly
or by Implication. by any Of it, proyi.
sionsi and In disregard ofthe fnndamen-
tal principle that the legislative power Of
tho United States Us exercised hy tho
agents Of the people Of this Republic IL
delegated and not Inherent.
There can be no doubt whatever that
the Chief Justice expressed the truth
In this matter according 10 American
principles. II therefore as certainly
follows that the decision Of tho
Supreme Court OF the United States Ia
this -asc, IA not true American law;
that II enunclates principles which, N
they become established, do actually
create revolution backwards; and
that sucha thing has, In fact, been
done 40 far ~ II II possible for the
supreme Court to go In the matter.
A. n, J.