The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-08-30
IDAHO AND DIsFRANcHIsEMENT.

propriety of the appeal of the idaho citizen
who has been refused registration for re-
fusing TO take certain oath. The case has
airesdy been referred to by TIE HERALD,
and we recur to it now for the purpose OF
Terrifying the position OF the disfranchised
citizen with decision of the United States
! Supreme Court bearing directly upon it.
In brief. the facts are that JOSEPH r. SHEP-
ARD, of Paris, Idaho, was. denied registra-
ton ION the ground that he would not take
the electors oath, or part of it, which runs
back to January, 1888, although willing to
| take the oath provided for in the state con-
sutution.n The former oath requires the
applicant to swear that he has neuer been q
member of ian organization or society
which taught and practiced polygamy and
plural marriage and its purpose is TOO
evident to require calculation.
The retroactive political test oath does
not come from Poland nor Ireland, but,
strange as it may look, Is the creation OF
the Republican party OF America, the
party of freedom and free soil. 1t
had its chief apostle, though not origl-
nator, in a fanatic who was washed up by
the waves Of Rsdicalism in a western state.
His name was DRAKE, and his test-oath
| system. incorporated into the soldier-made
constitution of Missouri, was called "the
provided that no nun should vote nor be
even an alderman, nor q corporation dlrec-
tor. nor practice law. nor teach school, nor
be a juror, nor be competent as bishop,
priest. deacon. minister, elder or other
clergyman, to teach, or preach, or solemn
ize marriage, if such person had ever been
IN armed hostility to the United States
government, or had ever given aid or coun-
tenance to any person so engaged, or had
ever by act or word manifested any sym
pathy TO any such person. The intending
voter had to swear before he could vote,
teach or preach that he had read this dis
qualifying clause and had never done any
of those things. Ii he undertook to dc
any of them without taking the oath, ne
could be fined $500 and be put in jail six
months, and il he falsely took the oath he
could be sent to the penitentiary for two
years.
| This was In 1865, after the war was over.
| In November of the same year General
FRANK p. BLAIR, one of the first men to
draw his sword for the Union, went to the
polls in ST. Louis to vote. He was willing
to take any oath pledging loyalty, but not
the Draconian drag-net. He was disfran-
chised Judge WooDsoN who bad served
in the federal army, but who had been
elected by the Democratic party to the
bench of his circuit aud had taken his seat,
cd h0
court because he had had son in the con-
federate army and would not swear ne had
banished him from his love. A young
girl whose father had been killed on the
southern side, and who taught school to
support her invalid mother, was indicted,
tried, convicted and imprisoned, because
she could not take the iron-clsd oath. But
the browning infamy was the arrest of q
Catholic priest, named CUMMINGS, who
was dragged from his pulpit in the per-
formauce of his sacred mission, and thrown
into prison, he believing that the state had
no right to dig down into his conscience
and compel him to declare whether his
whole allegiance was given to the cause OF
the Union, which, at that day in Missouri
was interpreted by the trainers Of the
oath to mean the cause of the Republican
party.
Father CUMMINGS, indicted in the county
where he preached, appealed. to the state
supreme court, where his case, OF course
went against him. Though submission tc
the powers that be was part of his creed
as it is of all religionists. he felt it his
duty to demand the expression Of the high
est tribunal in the republic. and so ap
pealed to the supreme court of the United
States. In due time the case was decided
and the court said
The oath prescribed by the constitution, di
vided into its separable parts, embraces more
than thirty distinct afirmstions or tests. Some
of the acts against which it is directed consti
tute ofenses OF the highest grade to which
upon conviction, heavy penalties are attached.
Some Of the acts have mover been classed a:
offenses in the laws of any state. and some O
the acts. under many circumstances, would no
even be blameworthy.
The oath thus required is, for its severity
without any precedent that we can discover.
In the first place, it is retrOspective it EN-
braces all the past from this day; and, II taker
wears hence, it will also cover all the inter
vening period. In its retrospective feature We
believe it is peculiar to this country. In Eng
land and France there have been test oaths
but they were always limited to an affirmation
of present belief or present disposition toward
the government, and we're never exacted witt
reference to particular instances OF past mis-
conduct In the second place, the oath is di
rected not merely against overt and visible
acts of hostility to the government, but is in
tended to reach words. desires and sympathies
also.
The state court was ordered to 'dis-
charge the defendant from Imprisonment
and suffer him to depart without delay. y
The priest went free. A quarter of cen
tury later we find this relic OF despotisn
nesting in the mountain Businesses of the
far west, the same weapon Of Intolerance
and prescription, despite the scathine
execration of the mos, august authority il
the land.
REMOVAL OF MARSHAL PARSONS
Captain E. H PARSONS has been notified