Show A NEW LEAGUE TRICK A Little AntiStatehood Conspiracy Con-spiracy NO GENTILES NEED APPLY The Mormon Jurors Give Their Reason Rea-son for RefuBlogta Take the Political Po-litical authorities Monstrosity The ray of daylight which THE HKRALD let into the conspiracy of the Federal Official wing of the Loya Leaguers had the effect of fairly dazzling dazzl-ing some of the archplotters in the scheme yesterday There had been high glee among the conspirators at the apparent way in which the plot was working as they desired de-sired The judge on the bench had already al-ready consented to amend the oath he had first settled pon in order to make it a little more obnoxious to Mormons ihe marshal had only to wait for the issuance of another open venire and then to instruct his deputies that in their rounds they must fight as shy ol Gentiles as they had hitherto done oi Mormons It was No Gentiles need apply this time And seeing that all the cash business of the term was over and that the cases to be considered in the future were mainly those civil disputes where scrip at 30 cents on the dollar or the thanks of the court was all that could bs expected by way of reimbursement no Gentiles did apply The deputies commenced their rounding round-ing up early and worked late they worked with unflagging zeal and in their eaceness almost allowed the cat to crawl out of the bag One of them appeared at THE HKBALD office last week and inquired solicitously for a geiitl < man employed thtrea Mormon He was told nat thegentleman was out f town He came again after that several times only to be met with the same answer Finally to the question as to why he did not summon another person in tbe vicinity aud several were named seeing that he was serving notice of an open venirehe replied Oh Ive got to have a Mormon No one else will do When the roster of Mormons was call d before Judge Zane Monday morning the conspirators were on the tip toe of expectancy As those who declined to take the oath promulgated by Me rs HoUister D 0 ey and other emiuent poled al authorities and after reflection adopted by the court as an improvement on the one framed by the court itselfwent back to tneir seats rejected the complacent suiii of > be conspirators deepened and broadened into almost open glee Wheu uue of the Mormons announced that he could tae the oath and did so the chill that weut over the spirits If the Leaguers and the way their smiles came to uncompleted stops were something some-thing painful to behold The rt8ult of the first two days examination exami-nation was that out of twentyaevtn Mor uions catechized eighteen declined to take the oath nine took it and remained in their seats This majority though not as large as had been Doed for was ample for the anti tjtate schemers Tue Mormons who voted for the Constitution Con-stitution prohibiting polygamy wh n questioned in the jury box refused to take an oath that they would nut themselves enter into polygamy was the cry that went forth from the anti State Leaguers throats So far the ohpnie bad been successful and the flamingonosed oracle of the Tribune levelled in sensational dispatches to the II Associated Press as he had not revelled for months before As before intimated the glee of the conspirators received something of a check when THE HERALD exposed the scheme yesterday morning Since that time there has been considerable anxiety lest Congress and the countryshould turn out to be a little better posted than the Leaguers gave them credit for lest the anxiety of the F 0 Hs to induce the Mormon jurymen not to tace the oath should be made apparent lest tbe difference between the original oath and the one the Court afterwards accommodatingly accommo-datingly accepted should come to be understood lest the real reasons that actuated the Mormon jurymen in declining de-clining to take the oath should come to light in short lest the whole plot to use the power of the United States courts in the war on the Statehood movement should be unveiled and exposed ex-posed And all this THE HERALD proposes if it lies in its powershall be brought to the notice of Congress and the country A reporter yesterday called on and interviewed all those gentlemen who could be found who were excused from jury service Monday and Juesday for declining to take the political authorities authori-ties oath L s HILLS cashier of the Deseret National Bank was the first one encountered He said in answer to the reporters queries I was in the convention that framed the Constitution so of course I favored it It looks to me absurd to urge that because be-cause I voted for the Constitution I could not consistently decline to take the oath put forward by the Court I declined to take it because I dont think the Court or any one else has aright a-right to propound such an oath to HK or any other man Had it been the form of oath under which 1 registered 1 should have had no hesitation in taking it NELSON A EMPEY of Clark Eldredge Co said When I went down to the court that morning it was with the full intention of serving n the jury I had compared the oath formulated by the Commission and the oue that I registered under with the other one that they call the political authorities oath and I had it in my mind that it was the first one that would proposed When they lugged in all that outside matter about the vast uncertain future and obedience to any alleged revelation I simply took it as a fling against my religion and wouldnt sign it Not unless I had to Had it been thp other oath to my mind it wouldu have been the same thing JOHN CLABK of the same firm was n member of the City Council so he was one of the earliest to take the oath under the EdmundsTucker law That oath Mr c O u J 0 Clark said and this wa afterwards confirmed by another member of the Council was the same one that the judges and United Stales officials themselves them-selves tookthe same one that they amended when they found the Mormons Mor-mons were willing to subscribe to it That oath Mr Clark said he could have taken cheerfully Not he faid that I am one of those who take the view that I there is any great difference between the two oaths A promls to obey the law is made unconditionally I take it but if a man subscribes to the latter oath he concedes the court and the framers of it the right to drag in u lot of stuff entirely foreign tj the bw Its an outrage that an oath originated by a lot of Loyal League agitators should be adopted by our courts and in any other country it would be denounced de-nounced universally As for any political po-litical capital they are trying to make out of it against the Statehood movement move-ment I am of the opinion that when oa I tew committees in Congress hear the I other side and learn how the courts have amended the oath so that Mormons Mor-mOns could not take itthe effect will redound upon themselves GEORGE F BROOKS said I registered under the new law and voted for the Constitution The Judge tried to carry the idea in conrt that the two oaths are the sarue bul you know and I know that they are not It was bad enough to have to make up your mind to take the oath Congress prescribed but it was a little too much to take this last dose They would make out that you have no mind of your own at all no choice ol your own 1 see no reason why the courts should acept such a thing from political authorities and certainly no reason why I should have to JAMES DWYER said emphatically that he would have taken the Commissioners oath He could not however take one which he regarded as b ing an insult to his religious re-ligious convictions MR DOHELSOK AND MB OLIVE had neither of the n voted for the Constitution Con-stitution Both had been absent from the city at the time the vote was taken Mr Olive said he wouldnt take the Courts oath religionist or no religionist religion-ist Mr Donelson had he registered under one oath thought he would have taken the other All the nonsense in the latter oath was offensive to him of course and it would have been a hard pill to swallow ALONZO YOUNG saw no comparison between voting for the Constitution and taking the Courts oath Ho declined because it was odious to him to have to promise so far into the future and b cause be thought the oith improper and offensive in its character The original oath was bad enough this Wits entirely repulsive H B CLAWSON JR had voted for the Constitution but that was very different to doing what the courts proposed It was his intention to live in accordance with the law he and no thought of breaking it But to be required to swear that he would never carry out his religious convictions convic-tions if he became convinced a revelation revela-tion commanded it was absurd They might as well require him to swear that he would never change his faith JOHN MDONALD JR said that to his mind the Courts last oath was much the worst Oar tainlv it was more objectionable to him The first was hard enough but he took it the last however he couldnt swallow swal-low at all He would make no oath to anyone as to what his conduct might be thirty or forty years hence Tne others of the gentlemen who declined de-clined could not be seen last eening one of them is quoted as having said that when he told Judge Zaue he had conscientious scruples against taking tbe oath he meant that his conscience would trouble him to biatdying day if IB conceded the right of a court or anyone any-one else to propose to an American citizen that he swear to such a monstrosity mons-trosity THE JURORS WHO REMAINED The opinion of a number of those gentlemen who remained on the jury was solicited Mr Winder Mr Madsen Mr Rowe Mr Sloan and others spoken to gave their views readily With those who had taken the oath it was not a question of choice but necessity The Court had instructed them expressly they said that they could not refuse unless they had conscientious con-scientious scruples against taking it They had no such scruples though the thing was far from being pleasant It was offensive to their manhood to have to take an oath framed in such a mnn ner and containing that gratuitous fiiug against their religionbut they could not say it was against their conscience because they thought substantially it was only a promise to obey the law and that they had already made in taninc the oath when thev registered As one of them graphically if not elegantly stated it In the first instance in-stance they say to you Gentlemen take the oath In the second they say Take the oath you dd scoundrels Moreover said Mr Sloan the gratuitous nature of the insult is apparent ap-parent from the statement of the court officers themselves wherein they declare de-clare the oaths are substantially the same If substantially the samo there can be no valid reason why the Commissioners Com-missioners oath should not be administered admin-istered save that the intention is to insult in-sult those who may believe in revelation revela-tion as a religious principle and by that insult place them in a position where they are compelled to submit to one or the other of two degrading conditions they must either submit to a willful and designed insult to their religion and an entrenchment upon their citizenship and manhood by taking an oath made odious by an inimical court or they must be placed in a position to appear as persons who voted for a Constitution against polygamy po-lygamy who took an oath to obey the aws against polygamy and Who then appear to say that their consciences will not approve of their doing of the very things they have done This is the position the Court manifestly designs i falsely to place them in and the dirty trick has been successful in several instances Simply because some of tho jurors would not submit to the insult they were forced to take hold of the other horn of the dilemma and as one of the jurors who took the oath I think my position the more agreeable of the two and I also think I got my revenge on the Court by doing the very thing it was designed to keep me from doing by a very cute but a very oon t 1 M y h temptible trick and one unbecoming a judge There is absolutely no escaping I the conclusion that the whole thing is a plot for if as those advocating the political authorities oath declare both oaths are substantially the same then there can be no just reason for compelling a Mormon to take that oath which is so revolting to his religious sense and to his genuine manhood as to almost turn his stomach unless the purpose be to try by this means to keep him from taking the oath and thus putting him and his ae in a false light before all men |