The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-01-27
FUTILE RESTRICTIONS,

4 IF bll BtSS'i bS llt iipb1' VI 'NNb
rcsentatlvcs for the admission OF Ari-
zonn and New Mexico as one State,
contains certain restrictive provisions
which must be incorporated Into the
Constitution OF the new State. These
restrictions aim against the sale of
paragraph of the report saysD and pro-
nibit plural marriages: and there are
many other stpulations."
What the House expects to accom-
plish by these restrictive clauses, we
cannot see. Undoubtedly, they are put
in the bill for fear that the people may
want 10 do the things that the clauses
prohibit But II the people inhabiting
the State thus created, want to do
these things, does Congress figure
out that a constitutional bar is
going to prevent them doing so2
When Statehood is acquired, what
would Congress or the Nation do If the
restrictions Were ignored? 1t could do
many things As Judge Jere Wilson in
sisted 1t could do with Utah in case her
compact with the Nation were violated,
as dcpriving her of mail facilities, re-
fusing recognition to her Senators and
Representative, depriving her OF the
Federal judiciary, and so on. But
would Congress do III II not the re-
strlctions are mere buncombe; they
count for nothing
In the present case. the people of
Arizona and New Mexico are unwilling
parties to this bargain; they don't want
Statehood on the terms proposed by
Congress. They would on this account.
probably, consider themselves less
bound by these restrictive clauses that
are conpulsorily required to be put in
the Constitution OF the proposed State
than they would be If these clauses had
been OF their own proposing. or If they
had willingly assented to the Congress
sional programme.
II was different in Utah. and yet |
Congress enforces no penalty for entire |
was to be forever and abso- |
lutely prohibited. yet 1t is restored The !
church was To keep It's hands off the |
State. and yet the church has reduced |
the State, the counties. the cities, to a
state of vassalage. There was |
a preliminary petition for amnesty, in |
which full allegiance to the law was |
given In, and two Presidents Issued |
proclamations, on the express
that the people would live
up TO the law. But nothing of the kind |
was done; polygamous living-unlawful
openly prevalent The
President of the Mormon church
stated under oath, that he
IS living In defiance of the laws OF God
md man: the president of the Twelve
Apostles says, also under oath, that
ne Is doing the same thing, An outspo-
zen supporter of them in their lawless
and unholy lives is a member of the U.
5 Senate. and so far from enforcing
penalty that Judge Wilson. the church
agreed would be entirely ap-
we're broken, there are Senators who
ire openly advocating and Will vote to
'etain Smoot in the Senate.
In View Of these undoubtcd facts,
Why should there be an attempt to i'm
,ose conditions such as are in this bill.
lpon the people OF the new State of
Arizona II they want to do the
hings prohibited, they Will do them,
md Congress will never enforce any
penalty for ignoring the restrictions.
I the people don't want to do them.
Why remind them OF their vassalage by
putting in the requirements? AS we
ave said. the people there don't want
statehood on the terms imposed But
n Utah the people not only wanted
but were eager themselves
n proposing restrictions that would
Iisarm all opposition, That this eager
less has turned to wear under the pres
mt masters of the church altogether
he guise OF dissimulatio ton and
differences of the popular protestations
n the two cases under discussion And
While the facts make the proposition
Ill the blacker for Utah they do not
II the least disguise the folly OF Con-
ress requiring such restrictions In the
of proposed States, when
here Is no intent in the body requir-
ng them to enforce any penalty in
ase they are disobeycd