Show THE INFAMY IS REVIVED A recent editorial iu ha this paper congratulated our friends in idaho over the apparent swA awakening kOning to justice which the powers that be in that state had undergone and the seemingly imminent restoration to those bistran dl di efran stran bided of all their rights as citizens in doing BO 00 we anticipated as to the courts action and in that supreme respect iliad find ourselves disappointed a Jis dispatch patch from boise dated yesterdays yesterday elsewhere in these and nd which appears announcing that the supreme colu columns nans decided the test oath jaw to be constitutional the opinion withholding the right to register and vote undivided action of the court is in the the loua tests test or whatever else it way may be palled by which the idaho mormons cormons were dis disfranchised franchised was made law by the legislature only last year a its ite provisions aras are in brief that any who since bince the first of january man 1888 or since he was eighteen years member of or practiced old ass has been a the beliefs belief of the mormon church or church or sect that teaches or has any taught the doctrine of patriarchal or plural marriage or has hai taught counseled to enter into or aided any person bigamy polygamy pol or similar marital conditions is ia denied the right of vot tot public election tiOu in the state inic ina at any the case which the supreme court hz haa just decided was brought a short time just man who went before the ago by a registrar of bear lake county and subscribed to the required oath it was claimed that in doing this perjury was waa committed he being a member of the church aimed at and he was suase arrested upon that charge he thereupon applied to the supreme court for a remedial writ on the ground that the law was unconstitutional not being in consonance with section 9 article I 1 of the united states constitution and against a provision in the tate state constitution both of which points are overruled and the writ is in denied the court holds substantially that ex post facto laws or those retroactive in their nature relate only to criminal procedure and that the exercise of suffrage is not an inherent right but a privilege lege regulated by law also that the he law is not in the nature of a bill of attainder tor bof that the constitution has the right to determine what qualifications shall obtain in the case of any one exercising any privilege or holding any office under the state and that it if any person or class clan of persons cornea within tho clause and is rejected he is properly rejected and there is no lao attainder attaching to it so long as it operates on all alike now it seems to us that there is in a lack of profoundness in the conclusion that the wise and beneficent provision against ex post facto legislation has no other meaning than the protection of a person charged with a crime there is in a special statute in every state stat and territory aimed at securing such rights to defendants hud and it Is known as a statute of limitations but even it cannot assist a person to the renewal of the right of suffrage when once that right has been forfeited through the suffering fluttering of punishment for certain crimes arimes it would appear that no matter wh st t construction may be placed upon the office of retroactive legislation one of the results of certain criminal sets acts is the loss lose of the fran ahlee which cannot thereafter in some rome cases be restored and that this is ie part ot of the punishment inflicted if therefore such buch deprivation of rig rights to as the people in idaho have undergone and are undergoing is a means of punishment wherein does the honorable court make the conclusion that their disfranchisement is a civil and not a criminal matter harmonize with sound logic to say nothing of common sense does not mot the case came stand thus the procedure Is strictly civil when the mormon could not be reached if it were criminal and the effect of this thin is criminal but the element of crime has no relation to the procedure la in the one case of a mormon so BO that his punishment cannot be reviewed or considered in the light of ex post lacto facto legislation la Is not that about the size of it again the lawn provide aad and the courts have held that the franchise in this country la Is jwo property perty and the best beet property a man can have if that be the ease awe upon what ground adges doe the idaho idabo court stand when it solemnly declares that voting to is a more mere privilege to be regulated by the state what makes the state and of what is it composed Is it not loot those same men who claim and exercise the right to vote who are the creators and upholders of the public court pays ays has in turn the right to disfranchise them with or without conviction of crime and can the thing created become superior to the creator would it not better to say that the state has the right to regulate but not to deny yet there is a reason for the court thinking and acting otherwise in the fact that to regulate implies to be regular that is uniform impartial not bu burdening A with conditions to which B is not subjected and so on but how could a legislature pass a measure aimed solely at a class and not intended for the annoyance of all who entertain objectionable opinions 0 inions if that vow rule were follow follower eu how could mor mons who only believe certain things at variance with their christian brethren be assailed and Cath catholics olim for instance who perhaps entertain certain bertain views of government not strictly in harmony with republicanism republican temp be let alone there is a good deal in the opinion that seems at this distance very evasive and uncertain as a legal instrument and very fixed and definite as a reflex of the spirit of political fanaticism in which the law was born those who framed mad and favored the odious sot act were determined t at those to whom they were opposed should not vote in the accomplishment of such selfish and wholly unworthy purpose they invoked the aid of the law and hive obtained what for the present answers their purpose a decision affirming its constitutionality tiona lity but the end is not yet |