Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1892-01-06
MORE Anour MoRmoSrsM.


 and calls for legislative enactment to punish the same." Of course it does. No one ever accused the leaders of the Mormon church'of being ignorant, but on the contrary they are shrewd and cunning. The two Mormon bishops, who visited Phenix, to prevent the insertion of a test oath clause in the constitu- tion, and whose efforts proved so successful, were shrewd enough to know that the people demanded some sort of apparent protection from their church, which is twining its octopus folds around the terri tory, and they were just cunning enough to have this provision insert ed, thinking that it would satisfy them. It will be noticed, however, that like many other provisions of this wonderful instrument, this clause is in itself imperative but re- lies entirely on future legislative enactment" for its operation. Hold ing as they now do the balance of
 power in the territory, and expect ing as they do if Arizona is admit
 ted as State, to colonize the terri ory so that they will have an abso- lute majority, does any intelligent citizen believe for a moment that they will permit of any Legislative enactment" to carry out this clause in the constitution It was simply intended to pull the wool over" the eyes of voters, and seems to have effectually served its purpose.
 Again, our contemorary says ''there was only one Mormon in the Consti- tutional Convention" which we do not deny either. But how many Mormon sympathizers, and mem bers, who feared the power of the Mormon church on account of the votes it controls were there in the body and who obeyed implicitly the dictates of its two bishops7 The best answer to this is the Constitu- tion itself. Let it reply.
 Again, our contemporary says, that ''there is only one county in the territory where the Mormon vote cuts any figure at all" In this it is mistaken. We do not know to which of the three counties where Mormonism is the most rampant it refers, but that there are three counties where it is the controlling factor in politics, and where the democratic party dare not oppose its desires, is we'll known fact. It is also a fact that it ''cuts considera- ble figure" in at least three. or four other counties as is also well known, so that in reality there are but three or four counties at the most where Mormonism does not "cut a figure and cuts it pretty deep, too.
 The assertion that the test oath clause could have been submitted separately, as stated by our contem- porary, seems to be another ::..stake, as it was pressed but was voted down by the democratic majority in the convention. This majority was evidently afraid to trust it to vote of the people, fearing lest it would not be stamped out as viper"
 The accompanying assertion that 'th ere is no more reason why a man should be compelled to swear before voting that he is not polygamist than there is for him to be required to swear that he is not a murderer or horse thief" seems on the face of it very plausible, and is a very aged Mormon argument. Their are always plausible on their face. There is however this difference. There is no organization that teaches murder and robbery as one of its principal tenets. whereas polygamy was the corner stone upon which the Mormon faith was built. It has been taught as being of di- vine authority, and members of the church have been taught that the more wives they could get in their earthly harems, the higher would be ] their position in the future world of l glory. If the doctrine was really 1 believed by them, as promulgated by Joe Smith, Brigham Young and other noted leaders, can any intelli- gent man believe in the sincerity of the church when it says that it dropped this doctrine from its tenets. Fealty to the church is greater than fealty to the state among Mormons, but the same fear of the law that has compelled them to drop the practice temporarily might compel them to continue its non-observance in. future if the proper restrictions were placed upon t. So that the difference between he two oaths cited above is much greater on analysis than appears on ts face. |.
 Our contemporary closes its art cle by an indirect fling" personally t the editor of this paper by saying hat the people who advocated the est oath are ''most generally found olding down some federal position. tc." Does the fact of man hold lg an appointment from the general l debar him from ex-