Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-09-03
THE REAL ISSUE IN IDAHO.

A DISCUSSION has been going on for
several days between our morning
contemporaries over the Idaho test
oath.
II has been stated on the onehand
that test oaths had their orr I'm In THU
country with tho Republican party,
aud an infamous one prevailed in
the South shortly after the war, the
object Of which was to perpe,ua,e Re-
publ can rule In the South, by the
Jisirauchisemeut OF all citizens who
ever participated in or countenanced
the rebellion. This was settled by the
famous Cummings case, In which the
Supreme Court OF the United States
pronounced the test oath unconstitu-
tional.
On the other hand II is claimed that
tho test oath In the South was justified
by the reoelllous spirit Of the people,
sndthat the persons named who refused
to take the oath were per hsps, or no
doubt, In sympathy with the rebels
even II they fought on the other side,
And ne TO the Idaho test oath, II was
framed by a Democrat and was de-
Tended In court by n Democrat, and the
opinion sustaining its constltutionahty
was rendered by Democratic Jus.
tice OF the Supreme Court.
A good deal OF recrimlnation IL in.
dulged In and much partlzan feeling,
all OF which which IA unnecessary in
his case and most OF It wide OF tn,
mark. The old Idaho test oath which
tho Supreme Court declared WIS mol
Unconstitutional was supported In
Idaho by both parties. However, on
the rule established by tn,
"Liberal" organ, 1t was Republican
measure, even II framed by q
Democrat, because II was passed
by what It would call a Republican
Legislature. When teferring to th,
killing OF the silver bill In Congress, Il
casts the blame on the Democratic
House Of Representatives because th'
Democrats were In the majority, nj
though 1t Ia well known that membeu
OF both parties voted against II. Tn,
Republicans were in the majority II
the Id ,ho Legislature that passed tn
original test oath.
But the truth Ia that neither party |
clear from blanc in the enactment q
thai measu re, which while declared
notunconstltutional because It does
violate the letter OF tho supreme Law
was clearly In contraveniion Of It
spirit, and while framed 70 Ms to np
pear to be for the suppression Of unlaw
ful polygamy, was in reality inteude
TO deprive members OF n partlcula
church OF their franchise simply oi
account OF their church memberhil
without reference TO their individuG
acts.
But this is all foreign to the presou
issue. II makes little difference VII
framed, OF passed, or sustained this
old test oath because II 10 not now i
the way. We do not think the recor
OF either party is unsrotted In refel
ence to it. But II is n dead issue. III
oath now to be tested is smother thin
entirely. The substance Of the oil
test cath Is In the State Constitution
Both parties or rather members OF bot
parties, helped to Tx it'there Noon
Ia fighting that. But the FIRST Leigh
lature Of the new state enacted an aC
ditbnal provision, which was at tn
time admitted to BIO ca post Jdoto, an
Il erefore unconstitutional, ana whic
IN OF the same nature as the iniamou
oath declared unconstitutional In tn
Cummings case. II ID this new oat
which is being tested, and that alon,
In Idaho.