Show TilE 1UAHO TEST OATH Referring again to the Idaho test oath THE HERALD wants to explain that it is not the old territorial test oath law nor yet the provision in the state constitution which stands in the way of the Mormons voting at the election in November It was the old law enacted by the territorial leg islaturn which the United States Supreme Court held to be valid that law denying I the suffrage to members of an organization I which taught or practiced plural marriage If that statute alone were in the way there would be no obstacle in the way of Mormons Mor-mons voting inasmuch us polygamy has not been preached or practiced since the issuance of the manifesto in lJO Hence Mormons could with propriety take the old oath Nor does tho constitutional constitu-tional clause interfere > vith Mormons who have not violated the antipolygamy law Tho constitution disfranchises bigamists and polygamists and persons belonging to an organization which teaches and advises polygamy The fundamental law also authorizes the legislature to enact statutes for carrying the constitutional provision into effect It is the law put into the boons by the first state legislature which is objectionable and the validity of which is to be tested in the courts That law provides that tho elector must subscribe to an oath that he is not a bigamist or polygamist polyg-amist and that ho has not since 1SS8 been a member of an organization that teaches or lies taught advises or hat advited counsels coun-sels encourages or aids or has counseled encouraged or aided any person to enter into bigamy polygamy etc It will be readily understood how any man who has been a member of the Mormon Mor-mon church since 1883 cannot take such an oath notwithstanding the fact that since the autumn of 1890 tho Mormon church has neither counseled taught nor permitted permit-ted the entering into bigamy or polygamy It is the ex post facto feature of the law which makes it unconstitutional and it is upon that ground it is to be fought not upon the ground that polygamists are disfranchised dis-franchised Wo do not apprehend that the constitutional provision denying the suffrage suf-frage to polygamists and bigamists will be antagonized in the courts nor do we presume pre-sume that bigamists or polygamists if there are any in Idaho will offer to take the oath or vote The denial is that the state baa the right to impose ex post facto conditionsthat it can enact a law covering cover-ing something that has happened THE HERALD has no doubt as to the final outcome of the proceedings to nullify the act The law will certainly be declared unconstitutional un-constitutional but whether ornot the adjudication ad-judication can be had in time for the coming com-ing election is the question If it cannot then there will bo no occasion for going into court as both parties are pledged to repeal the act The repeal will come too late to be available before lS9i the Mormons Mor-mons all tha time being denied the privilege of suffrage and having no voice in the government gov-ernment which they support and to which they are loyal this denial being insisted upon regardless of the fact that the men are not and never have been polygamists and have lived correct upright lives |