New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-14

Need of Definition IN the Constitu-
tion-CaSe of Mormons.
To the Editor of the Tribune.


Sir: The investigation Of the claims Of Senator
Reed Smoot, and in general of the right to exist
or the Mormon body brings into high light the
first Amendment to the Constitution-one phrase
OF which seems to be the principal legal and tech
nical defence OF the Mormon case. This oft-quoted
article begins: Congress shall make no law re-
specting the establishment of religion or prohibit
ing the free exercise thereof and then proceeds
TO guarantee freedom of speech and of the press
and the right OF peaceable assembly and of petition
to the government
Now. this classic phrase Congress shall make no
law prohibiting the free exercise OF religion it
alleged. protects the Mormon in the exercise of his
peculiar faith and In the privileges of citizenship
provided he himself be not actually polygamist.
ana therefore liable under recent statutes. And
further, If not actually polygamous he may aspire
10 the highest national Offices else, told.
should be requiring a religious test, contrary to
Article VI of the Constitution.
But just here arises the all important question
What is religion? Who shall define this i'm
portant term? The Constitution does not define it.
We need, above all things, this definition. For if
II should appear that system OF doctrine or of
social practice calling itself religion is not a
religion then the Constitution does not guarantee
such a system any right to live; the Constitution
does not stand in the way of it's prohibition by
Congress. 1t is quite possible that the label RE
lgion' may deceptively be affixed to a system es-
sentfally immoral and irregious. What then?
Shall we have no way OF exposing the fraud? Must
1t be tolerated under the Constitution? Surely
we have already made a precedent to the contrary.
The people of the United States have always been
extremely jealous of the right OF free speech-safe
guarded in the same article above referred to-as
Jealous OF the right of free religion Hence even
intammatory utterances have been permitted in the
past lest the right of free speech should be
abridged. And yet. since the death Of Mckinley.
there has been just legislation looking to the sup
preston Of anarchistic and violent speech. which
can be proved to scatter seeds of treason and death
to public officials Was this infraction of the
right Of free speech7 No: it was restraint of Ii
cense in speech masquerading liberty Of speech.
1t was definition of free speech
Now. in the same sort. suppose under the name
or religion a body of men teach sedition
der or anarchy theft polygamy-shal the
Constitution and the courts and the people of the
United States accept the assurance of this cult
that their system is truly a religion? VIII it be
restraint of religious liberty and abandonment
OF our ancient principles of liberation exclude
from the list of reiigiones cit those that incul
of religion and proper limitation of immoral IL
cense which is dangerous to society and to GOV
eminent itself. We have never yet made defni-
uon. was 1t because the achievement was diff
proclaimed the vital necessity of pure religion TO
fae existence of the Republic? Perhaps we may con
ous liberty" is much abused and the violent take it
sumption Doubtless definition is difhcult-good def
milton always is OF course If we are TO define. 1t
the Constitution: it must be wide. tolerant, unsec
tartan, NEUROLOGICAL and yet it must be officially
accurate and morally pure
In feeling our way toward definition it certainly
tenn that encourages crime can be legally con-
strued as religion and the coroilary that There
the terms of the Constitution. But next. have
crime; and thus we arrive at the advanced posi-
ton that no polygamouS system, claiming to be
fu Hsasa0n may claim immunity under the consti
That polygamy is crime established by the the
laws of all civilized nations not emitting even
many a barbarian tribe. And if some be still dis
posed to argue that we in the United States can
and that some quasi-religions which teach prac-
be- d a
religious and tolerabe. we have to reply that this
a so-caIied religion may be officially lower than
the statute law Of the land-lower than the com
bated such crimes against fellow men and women
do b DC not hen teyg ars
below the law and contrary to the law; the State
religions. and representation requires that at
crime as the ls shall f Be legally ed
Neither such principles be criticised as in |
Sst Of history
the tn he Of Or mHn a
in obedience to a higher moral law
practise nfamy under the guise Of religion and
duty. These latter to suppress and to punish is |
every day to common criminals, whom we put be-
to confuse such Justice with intolerance?
To conclude. then; We propose with becoming
bate, an amendment to the Constitution. in form
something follows
"A system alleged to be religious, which be /
proved to inculcate crime shall not be construed |
to be religion, and such system may be pro-
hibited by law And any person who can be proved |
to be a supporter adherent of such al |
legged religious system, which inculcateS crime may
be excluded from holding office under the United |
States notwithstanding the provision contained in
Such a definition would seem to be accurate |
enough, for the statutes define crime. 1t would do
no wrong for it would not prevent the exercise OF
A tolerable religion-Buddhist, Confucia2, Mahom-
atan or even Mormon-if the polygamous GRIM
nal features truly eliminated And il would
open the way for national legislation that could
,onstitutionaly suppress all criminal religions
Ind could exclude from public office all adherents
hereto on the ground that they belong to a sect
which encourages crime. whether they themselves
are actually practising crime or not-they are con-
;pirators whether they have committed any overt
act or not For, IL we refute the fallacy that
such sect is religion, we shall probably have
title difficulty in excluding member of a
essedly criminal and immoral society-just as we |
efuse citizenship to anarchist, without waiting
or him to shoot President. The national Sen
tie and House would probably show little hesita- |
ion about excluding adherent OF immoral |
system. II it be made plain that the system was
Tot a religion. The gross immortality of the Nor
non system has been confessed by the Mormon |
president and others. but wrestle with their |
assertion that their institution is a religion
Let have definition OF the constitutional
word religion RUFUS =. MARKS:
Hillburn Rockland County, n. Y, March 8. 1905
WILL NOT SELL THE DEUTSCHLAND.