| Show I 1 A MOST astonishing OPINION WE publish today the full text of the opinion of the supreme court efthem united states in relation to the idaho test oath case we were surprised when the purport of the decision reached us by press dispatch we are much more surprised after reading the opinion of the court our astonishment is twofold first that the court did not seize upon points that might have been taken which would have been at least plausible and second that they have entirely avoided and utterly ignored the question on which the whole case turns that question was not whether a person who breaks the law in relation to polygamy and polygamous practices or who aids and abets counsels or advises its violation may be dis franchised no such hypothesis was presented to the court and yet this is made the basis of the whole argument indulged in by the court their citations from the decisions in the reynolds Bey and murphy cases have little or no bearing upon the issue in this cue case they relate t to 0 the practice of polygamy but incidentally ci they touch on the question of belief aud and the freedom of Opil opinion liong and so far as they are relevant to the present question they are dead against the conclusion which the court has reached they declare that it is only overt ac acte against peace and good order that oan be touched by legislation and that liberty of faith and war worship are secured to all religionists by the constitution and the institutions of this republic the appellant I 1 in n this case was not a bigamist or polygamist and he did not aid or abet counsel or advise anyone to commit an y offense against the laws he was simply a member of a church some other members of which it is claimed were mists and did aid and abet the practice of polygamy the question was whether he could be punished or deprived of any political rights or privileges because of the overt acts of other people when it could not be shown and was not even claimed or pretended that he be had committed any such overt act himself this question the court has not even alluded to Thede the decision cislon then is not a decision of the matter in capt that the court says the test oath law is not in violation of the constitution and yet in giving their reasons for arriving at this conclusion they are silent upon the facts and arguments which demonstrated its unconstitutionality and this is not all the court misstates the claim of cou counsel n iel for tb the e appellant and goes so far as to put language into their mouths which to is the exact opposite of their words for I 1 instance stance ri the court says it to is assumed by counsel of the petitioner t tit that because no mode of worship can be established or religious tenets enforced in this country therefore any form of worship may be followed and any tenets however destructive tive of society may be held and advocated if asserted to be a part pan of the religious doctrines of those advocating and practicing them but nothing is further from the truth whilst legislation for the establishment of a religion is foi bidden and its free exercise permitted it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated crime to is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect seat may designate as religion that counsel for the defend defendant aut did not amu assume mell thisby this may be readily seen from the following extract from their brief p 38 from the foregoing it conclusively appears that a man may entertain any religious opinion belief faith or sentiment be cho chooses oies and there is no civil power or authority that can in any way directly or indirectly restrain or interfere with that hat opinion nor deprive him of any or of the rights or privileges privileges of citizenship because thereof it is equally clear that he may in the free exercise of his religion vor 4 or ship according to the dictates of his conscience and perform such acts y and engage in such practices as he may deem most acceptable to hit his Creat creator cir 1 provided he commits no criminal offense off emse jt it I 1 is only when he has done an act that the law has de c blared t to 0 be criminal that he be can be burthe punished d or deprived of any right common to his fellow citizens and then he be is in not punished or thus deprived because of his opinion but because of the commission of the got act which has been forbidden by law it is not a crime and in this country cannot be made a crime to belong to any particular church and this as we shall hereafter see even though it teach bigamy and polygamy no legislative authority has ever attempt eato act to make such a law the fulli full extent to which a statute might go would be to punish the act of bigamy or polygamy when committed the appellant in the free exercise of rell religion gion 91 was entitled to his membership in thel mormon church he had committed commit iW no act forbidden by law therefore the provisions of like idaho statute dis franchising and debarring him from office are unconstitutional and void we state without the slightest hesitation that this position of the learned counsel is impregnable it cannot be overturned by law or logic the only thing the court could do against it was to misunderstand or misrepresent it and that they have done one or the other is palpable they say counsel for the defendant have assumed that any form of worship may be followed however destructive of society if asserted to be part of religious us doctrine while counsel actually say that a man may worship according to the dictates of conscience provided he ae commits no nd criminal ad act and that be may be punished and deprived of rights common to his fellow citizens tor lor an act which has been forbidden by law awl the case of the appellant to is thus stated by his ainsel in their brief p 11 it is not denied and consequently 9 admitted that he had the qualifications of citizen citizenship shi p age and residence he was not under the disability of any conviction for treason felony or bribery he was not registered ed or entitled to vote at any other place he was waa not a bigamist or polygamist he did not and would not publicly or privately or in any manner whatever teach advise counsel or encourage any person to commit bigamy or polygamy nor any other crime and he regarded the constitution and laws as interpret ed by the courts as the supreme taw law of the land any teachings of the church to 0 the contrary notwithstanding 11 it is clear from this that ahab the appellant had committed no overt act agai dat the law dar aided nor ad others to do so and further that he had sworn he be would not and yet the whole argument of the court to excuse their decision is directed against the practice of polygamy the carrying into effect of doctrines and tenets which are opposed to the 0 criminal laws of the country as though bhough the appellant had been found guilty of this offense I 1 n commenting upon the test oath the court says with the exception of persons under guardianship or of unsound mind it simply excludes from the privilege of voting or of holding any office of honor trust or profit those who have been convicted of certain offenses and those who advocate a practical resist anoe ance to the laws of the territory and justify and approve the commission of crimes forbid forbidden deu bv it this is 19 perfectly astounding the objection on to the test oath is not founded upon anything thus expressed by the court but upon the exclusion from the privilege of voting and holding office of citizens who have neither been convicted of those offenses ofFen offer seB ism nor have commit ted either of them nor have advocated ad yo caio a practical resistance to the jaws nor have justified or approved the commission of forbidden by the laws here again it is evident that the court have failed to grasp the language and purport and effect of the test oath law or they have misstated it intentionally they have left out of their statement the very provision on which this whole contention has turned namely the power of the legislature to punish or deprive of political rights and privileges a citizen who possesses all the statutory qualifications and who has never broken the laws simply because he belongs to an organization organisation tation some members of which it is claimed hae broken the laws and teach and aid in their vlola violation the most charitable hypothesis in this connection is that the court missed the main ques question tiou involved in the controversy that they were so intent on supporting measures for the suppression of polygamous practices they overlooked the momentous question as to whether an innocent citizen can be punished and deprived of eights because of the acts of others that mere membership in a church which to is said to teach practices condemned by the law although that membership does not involve the commission of any of those thoe practices may operate to the exclusion of a law supporting BUp porting citizen from the political rights to th his fellows this was the case before the court this the court has not touched or alluded to this oust must be pressed upon the attention of the highest legal tribunal of the country and a decision must be obtained on which which there can be no mistake the matter cannot be permitted to end here thereto there is too much involved in it the all important principle plo of religious liberty is at stake and every religious society in america should be interested in bringing it to a final issue the ground will have to be gone ver over again |
