Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1892-06-03
SHALL THEY vormY
Malad Enterprise

Malad Enterprise.
We have recently received nun.
2 Der OF inquiries from Mormon friend.
on the subject of the right of Nor
mons to vote under the existing laws
We have before taken occasion to ex-
plain our views on this subject and
have little 10 add. Under the law
now upon our statutes, few Mormons,
we believe, can vote legally; but, Of
course, there is n question Of the
validity of the law and, we may can
didly say, a grave question. That
law was enacted against an organiza-
ton which preached and practiced the
crime OF polygamy or celestial mar
siage. At the time Of the enactment,
It IS possible and probable that no
such organization existed within the
jurisdiction Of the law, but the law
dates hack to time, |. O., the first Of
January, 1888, when the Mormon
church was known to be an organiza-
ton such as the law contemplated.
The question then rests upon the
right OF the legislature to deny prvil-
eyes to members OF an organization
on account of teachings and practices,
formerly incnlcated by that organiza-
ton, but which were, prior to the en-
actment of the law, officially re-
nouncod by the authorities OF the or.
ganization. 1t is the PANE old ques-
ton which arose in the test oath case
that is, to what extent legislature
may go ia defining the qualifications
OF electors. Under our State consti.
tuition the power Of tho legislature
seems to be almost unlimited. Sec.
tion three Of article six goes on to
enumerate a number of Disqualified
tions and then section four confers on
the legislature the power to increase
the list OF disqualiications to any ex-
tent It may dispose. 1t may readily
De seen that the Legislature, by hav.
ing Unlimited power to say who shall
not vote, virtually defines who may
vote. The great trouble seems to be
that the franchise Is not constitn.
tional right, therefore, its restriction
or absolute denial is in no sense
penalty. II is merely withholding a
privilege which the State has power
TO grant or refuse as it may elect.
Yet, withal, the law seems to work at
injustice. Because, If the Mormon
church has renowned the practice Of
poiygamy, which it evidently has, then
the church has purged itself. 1t has
Voluntarily removed from its mem.
bers the disqualiicatons which the
law intended to obliterate. In other
words, the object Of the law was to
abolish an illegal practice; that, the
Mormons have done. Now what OBJ.
Ject can there possibly be in enforc-
ing law which operates as hard.
ship upon individuals without pro.
ducing any public benefit. That is
to say, the object for which the law
was created has been accomplished.
therefore, the law ought to expire
with the term OF its usefulness. This
seems to be case in which the stat.
utes and common justice conflict.
Not being lawyer we incline to the
belief that justice would prevail in
case contest arose. But, neyerthe.
loss, it is pretty fine question and
until we receive some new lipht. we
prefer to leave the decision where !.
properly belongs first, in the mind
OF each individual and second, with
the courts. We would, however
warn our friends against hasty and
lll-advised conclusions. There are
good arguments on both sides of the
question and they should be duly
weighed before being acted upon
The time is not distant when this
vexed question will be finally settled.
T.. II
IN tho meantime we hope for the best.
------------- . -