OCR Text |
Show THE SOPttKME COIJET DECISION. "A RfjvtbW ol the Djciiioa of the Buprerue Cuiirt of Hie United States iu ilniciweof Oeorae RoynoUiw- The United Mutes' by George Cannon. Tug abovo ia the title of a iifiy-aeven pdgu pamphlet just iejued from the De-wet AVioj eotubiialimeut. Very fw de'Jfioua of lho United Mutes Supremo court have excited more general diacuaaion throughout the cuuntry than that delivered ,by Chief Juatico Waite, ftlDrmiag the constitutionality of the anti-polygamy law ol coDresd- Lawyora, Diiniatera of the goapel, editors and the people have reviewed Lho opinion from vurious standpoints, and all with more or 1cj3 of intelligence, and most of Llieru with a certain degree of prejudice animal or fitvorilUra for the Murmoa church. The number of commentator and reviewers who havo been able to speak of the decision deci-sion and the peculiar practice or in-etitntiou in-etitntiou that brought it about, without with-out exhibiting bias of opinion and pernunal prejudices, is exceedingly Biriull, anil of that niimljr only a emtill purceuUge carad to havo their name known as holding to the views entertained and advocated by theni. Especially ia this the case with the Don-Mormon3 wlo take iue with the Supreme court's views. It in unpopular with the world to apeak well of the Mormons, and with a very large cli33 it is wrong to treat the peculiar people with even justice or fairness. One of the ablest reviews of the Reynolds decision that we have seen is by a gentleman who will not permit himself to be known aa the author, "An Old Lhwyei" he sina himael' He ie, we understand, a constitutional lawyer of national reputation; but he thiuks be oauuot aflord to aufiar the popular uensuro and abuse that would be applied to him were he to be found doing justice to and dealing honestly by the despised religionists. But to Mr. Cannon's review. Perhaps Per-haps no member of the Mormon church is better qualified to speak in Ibis connection than Mr. Cannon.! Hid logical methods, great learning, thorough knowledge of the Mormon doctrine of polygamy, Bincere earnestness earn-estness of heart and purpose and high ecclesiastical and civil positions, aptly fit him for intelligently dealing with the question, at least from the Mormon standpoint. After tho intro ductory chapter, which consists of a brief statement of the Reynolds case and an expression of delicacy on the pait of the author in reviewing a decision de-cision of the high tribunal, Mr. Cannon Can-non proceeds to Btate the views of ttie L,attcr-uy bainls respecting lho First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits congress from making mak-ing any "law respecting an establishment establish-ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Mormons hold that their system of plural marriage mar-riage is a part ol their religion, and therefore protected from legislative interference by the above cited aoieudruont. Congress, by tho passage- of the law of '62, and the courts, by sustaining the constitutionality constitu-tionality of that law, have decided tbt Mormon polygamy ia not ro- - " ligion. "What ia religion?" under the Conaufution, Mr. Cannon then aska, and in a Lowering the question, refers to the hitljry or the times in lho midst of which the provision passed, quoting tome Bentences from the Virginia Vir-ginia act "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jeflenon, and applied by the court iu the Reynolds Rey-nolds decision. Mr. Cannon does not take issue with Jtfleraon'a interpretation interpreta-tion of what ia religion, but quotes from the Virginia "Declaration of Rights," adopted nine years befoio the "religious Irecdom" act, a section drafted by Mr. Mason, aud amended by Mr. Madison: That religion, or tho duty which wo owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed on'y by reason and conviction, not by force oV vio'once, and therotoro all men arc ; equally entitled to tho free exercise of religion, according to tho dictates of con-soifnee; con-soifnee; and that it is tho natural duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and chanty towards oach other. Mr. Madison's exact idea of relig ious freedom waa embodied in an amendment to the abovo when it came before the convention, as fol lows: "No man, or class of men, ought, on account of religion, to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges, nor subjected to any penal-tics penal-tics or disabilities, unless, under color of religion, lho prevention of equal liberty and the existence of the etate are manifestly eudanjered." From which Mr. Causou argues that a man's faith, his worship, his religious practices, prac-tices, aro his own, and government cannot interfere with them without Irespasaiug upon the rights of the citizen. The man is responsible to his Creator, and to Hitu alone in the matter of his religious belief and practices, so long as the preservation of equal liberty and the exiateace ol the elate are not manifestly endangered. endan-gered. Polygamy is not a practice that endangers equal liberty or threatens the state. Aa tha Supreme court quoted so freely from Mr. JetV;rson, Mr. Cannon Can-non also drAws largely from that lattsman, aud applies his definitions, not ouij of religion itself, but of the legitimate powers of the government in religious atUirs. Ia hia notes on Virginia, Jttferson says: "The rights of conscience we never aubmilted, we could not submit"; we are answerable ior them to our God, The legitimate power of government extend to such actions only as are injurious to others." And here Mr. Cannon adopts an expression of the decision in reference lo other wordj of Jefferson: Jeffer-son: "Here is fxund the true diatinc tiou between what belongs to the church aud what to the state;" and ays, that neither the legislature nor any brauch of the civil powor can legitimately interfere with liberty, not of mere opinion alone, but religious religi-ous liberty of practice. Too individual is at full liberty to discharge hia duty to hia Creator in bis own way, to render H.im the homage and obedience which He may command, or which hia conscience may uictata. n i am convinced that He has cotn-j manded His people, ol whom I hope I am one, to obey the principle of patriarchal marriage, as Hia eervants did, who has the right, legitimately, to interpose and aay I shall not obey that command ? If I deem it necessary neces-sary to my eternal happinoss, if I am convinced that euch an act will please my Creator, and that if I do not obey the command I cannot attain to that exaltation, in comparison with which the world, and all its honor, : power and glory, and my own life in it, are of but trifling value, who shall stand up, in tha face of heaven, and say I ahall not do this?" The legitimate powera of congtess, according to JeQeruon's definition of the rights of conscience, extend no further than to interfere with Euch religious acta aa are injurious to others. This is the same view held ; held by Madison, who further defined 1 tho bounds of religious liberty in al letter to Eiward Livingstone, wherein ! he wrote: " I obuorve with mucb pleasure the immunity of religion I from civil jurisdiction in every caso: where it does not treapasa on private J right or public peace." Mr. Cannon, after adopting these definitions, aa the Supreme court has done in its decision, proceeds to put forth a strong argument against the: interference of the civil power with the Mormon belief and practioe of; polygnmy. "Our actions," he aaya, "do not injure others. We do not trespass on private right or the public peace. We do not interfere with tho happiness of our fellow citizens, or with tneir lives, liberty or property. Neither tho preservation of equal liberty nor the existence of the Btate is endangered by ua. Our examplea ore in favor of virtue and morality. J Vice is frowned upon and punished. In the practice of our religion, then, we are on the line, beyond which, according to the highest authority, tho civil power cannot go." He thinks the Supreme court has taken a limited, if not mistaken, view of the scope and effect of the amendment to the Constitution, under which the Mormons claim protection. Tho amendmeut, applying the court's methods for determining its exact meaning, by referring to the history of the time of its adoption, and the die-cussiona die-cussiona that arose when it was pending, pend-ing, was certainly intended to be as broad oa the Virginia religious freedom free-dom act to which the court makes frequent allusions in connection with Mr, JeflerEOQ. We cannot refer further this morning morn-ing to Mr. Cannon's review. The famous Tony PaBlor is about to turn hia attention to journalism having arranged to commence the publication of a weekly newspaper in New York. A good many people in this world do not know how to let well enough alone, snd Tony Pastor appears to be one of them. As a variety actor and ehow manager ho was a monoy-makiug auocess, and accumulated a large fortune in the buinoss; but as a journalist we will wager that he will prove a conspicu ous failure, and soon run through with his property. |