The Idaho scimitar. [volume] (Boise, Idaho) 1907-1908, 1907-11-30

the people of the State of Michigan can re-
wise their State Constitution so as to require
the taxpayers of that State to pay annually
certain for the maintenance of the
Episcopal the Catholic, the Presbyterian
the Methodist or any other church, such
clause in the Constitution of Michigan
any other independent State of the Republic
would not be antagonistic to anything con-
tanned in the Constitution of the United
States"
1t is true that when the States delegated power
to the Government by the Constitution, they die
not specially attempt to limit themselves in the mat
ter of religious liberty. There many things
which omitted in the Constitution, the doing OF
which would be repugnant to the spirit of the Con
stuton and the institutions of this Government that
they would be held to be unconstitutional Whether
there is anything in the Constitution seeking to limit
the power of the States in regard to the establish
ment of the church or not the courts have time and
again held that such a tax Mr. Hopkins says can
be laid to compel taxpayers of that State to pay
annually a certain for the maintenance of the
church, would be utterly repugnan to the Constitu-
ton of the United States, for it would deprive the
taxpayer of his property without due process of
law, and without 'just compensation"
If Mr.. Hopkins is right, then Utah amend its
Constitution, pass a law establishing the Mormon
church, and compel citizens of Illinois, who own
property in Utah, to support that church or be de-
prived of their property The Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of Downs VS.. Bidwe:
There certain principles of natural
justice inherent in the Anglo Saxon char
acter which need expressions in consti-
buttons statutes to give them effect"
In the last biography and public record of Albert
]. Hopkins issued by him, without signature, from
his headquarters in the Federal building in Chicago
shown by his literature, he speaks thus modesty
of himself:
"The position taken by Senator Hopkins
in the Smoot case not only places him III
the front rank of American constitutional
lawyers, but showed him to have the courage
of his convictions"
1t is refreshing to have Mr.. Hopkins admit that
he is great constitutional lawyer" and it is to be
+fn1 that ale 1,oc
observed this popularity and | now challenge him
and his friends to get any gentleman who has ever
been student of constitutional law, to say that Mr..
Hopkins is right when he SAYS that the State of
Utah, other State, may deprive any citizen
of his property for the support of any church.
So then, ladies and gentlemen, to briefly restate
the | do not believe that any church getting
possession of the machinery of the State could COM
pei the taxpayers to support that church 1t would
be such ntermingng of church and State to
be utterly repugnant to the spirit Of American in
stitutions and tax levied in support of the church,
and the confscations that would follow of private
property when the failed to pay such tax,
would be the taking of private property without
Just compensation and in violation OF the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution.
Again, I think I have shown you the difference
between taking a seat in the United States
Senate, who is a member of of the churches
cited by Mr. Hopkins, every of which recognize
the Government of the United States as having legal
power to administer governmental affairs and the
taking of seat in the United States Senate of
man belonging to society, or engaged in any con-
spiracy, which claims that such government
the Government of the United States, has any right
to exist.
I think have answered Mr.. Hopkins statement
that Reed Smoot discouraged polygamy by quoting
from Mr. Reed Shoots evidence that while
knowing that the president of the church had five
wives and forty-three children, he had never pro-
tested against his conduct, and never intended to-
think have shown that in 1889, the Third Judicial
Court of Utah found that the oath of vengeance
taken by Mornons against this Government ex-
actly the same as found by the Senate committee,
and when the court found that John Moore and
William ]. Edgar had taken the exact oath that