| Show AN IMPERTINENT JOURNALIST The editor of Albuquerque N M Democrat is becoming impertinent and he is driving his impertinence into precincts that are sacred Tho first thing he knows some fellow with a pencil between his fingers will be popping up and saying he is disloyal and should be hanged for treason The editor in a leading article confesses that he is not a constitutional lawyer and because he is not he asks that somebody who is will give him some information on certain matters One point upon which he desires enlightenment is thus stated If Congress can disfranchise the Chinese and the territory of Idaho can disfranchise the Mormons and be sustained in so doing do-ing by the supreme court of the United States what is there to prevent pre-vent the state of Mississippi from disfranchising the colored people 1 It has I been generally supposed that the fifteenth amendment to tho constitution stood in tho way of any act of such character but according to the act of Congress in the Chinese matter and the decision of the supreme court in the Idaho case that is merely a popular delusion and the fifteenth amendment like any other provision constitutional con-stitutional or statutory can be construed to mean yes or no according to the exigencies exi-gencies of the case and depending mainly I if not altogether upon whether it is our bull or yours who is doing the coring We respectfully suggest that such questions ques-tions and this style of reasoning will not do in this republic and in this the final decade de-cade of the nineteenth century New Mex ican editors should be content to know that when the Republican party does a thing and the Republican supreme court approves it the end of discussion has come and it is treason to ask questions Our Albuquerque journalist rushes madly ahead however and persists in propounding propound-ing ugly and uncomfortable queries regarding regard-ing the exclusion of the Chinese in defiance of the constitution and in the face of the national profession of offering safe asylum to the oppressed of all nations Turning again to the Idaho law which seems to have pleased the federal supreme court so much the Democrat man continues The Idaho case is even broader in its terms of discrimination if such a thing bo possible than the Chinese act since it not only outrages the amendments but disregards disre-gards the very cornerstone of the constitution con-stitution tho right of consciencea right in defense of which our forefathers took up arms against Great Britain and a right which is not only declared sacred and inviolable in-violable by the constitution but which is asserted in the Declaration of Independence Independ-ence and all the fundamental documents of the revolutionary era The Idaho law is a clear violation of this right for it must be remembered that it is not limited in its scope to those persons who are guilty of polygamy or other unlawful practices but applies also to all persons who profess a belief in certain religious tenets And yet this act which if its principles were carried car-ried their ligitimato conclusions would result in the establishment of a state religion re-ligion is sustained by the supreme court of the United States He concludes by soliciting explanations from those learned in the law and by asking ask-ing lawyers to say if in the light of the Idaho disfranchisement law and the Chinese Chi-nese exclusion act there is anything in the constitution as now construed to prevent any state in the union from passing and enforcing en-forcing like acts of discrimination against tho people of any race or of any religious denomination |
