OCR Text |
Show SENATOR CHRESTIANCY'S BILL. Tlio providiotid of Senator Chris-tliun-y'a bill to provide for challenscs to jurors in trials o( bigamy iiml polys-amy polys-amy in the territory ol L't.tli, are roportcd a follows in the presa di-patches di-patches : Tlu bill provMf s that on finy lriul for bimiinv or polyRirny i: will b stuti.'i-nt cftinnof thaMunte and ( r tbc rejection of" any juror, tirst, tltit bo bus more tban ono wifo living in sitiJ toni'.ory. whuther married by ordinary rites ir by the o-c-tlli-d ill in caroraony ; or, ond, th -it ho behoves it mornliyr gli'- for a nun to live witli more than ono wife. In other words Senator Chmluincy proposes, in trying cases of polygamy in Vi.ih, lo prick the jurors, grand and petit, by placing in the jury boxes nd man who believes in the "Mor : mon" system of leligion. The prac- 1 tical eflect of this new law would be lo 1 disfranchise, so far as one of the most important rights of citizenship is concerned, con-cerned, perhaps eight-tenths of the entire population of Utah, and place their liberty and properly in the bands of two-tenths of the resident citizens, and those (in theory and region at lea-it) the enemies of the vast majority. major-ity. . ' It will doubtless be urge 1 that practical polygamists are made crim ' inals under the United States law, ' and t her afore are not entitli-d to sit upon juries for the trial of this offense, of-fense, and this, waiving th ipicslion of the justice or legality of the law against polygamy, mut b granted. Tnis practice prevails at present under the ruling of our warts, which hold the f.ict of polygamy to be a good ground of challenge in the selection se-lection of jurors. As farai this goes, therefore, there would be no necea- ' sity for amending the law, a::d the rir?t clause of the bill must be re-g re-g trded as mere surplusage. The last two lines of the above report re-port of the proposed bill contain its only novel and vital provision, viz: making it a sufficient cause for the challenge of a juror on any trial for bigamy or polygamy thafhe believes it morally right for a man to live with mure than one wife." As this belief is a tenet of the "Mormon" church, '.held to be obligatory upon its ! members, the clauso ia equivalent to excluding every member of that ; church in good standing from Lie jury box. It amounts simply to a j '. religious discrimination, which is not i only unconstitutional in tact, but entirely contrary to the spirit and genius of our government. Even 1 granting the legal power of the con gress of the United States to specially legislate against polygamy in Utah, it certainly has no right to make a Miff', religious or moral, a test of any right of citizenship, or lo exclude a chws of citizens from the j jury box because of their belief. . It may be objected that without ' 1 somo such clause it would be impoa- f sib'e to procure convictions in casts j of polygamy in this territory; but with this objection we have nothing to do. The law-makers must keep within constitutional limits; they are J . not respon-iiblo for the failure of tho fundamental law to cover the question ques-tion of polygamy, jtnd they -should remember that an infringement of , that law to suit a special case wou!J be more dangerous in its results than any evil which can ever grow out ; of the peculiar social system of Utah. Xo, gentlemen, it will never do, how-i how-i ever much you may dtsire uniformity on this question of marriage, to resort ! lo unconstitutional methods of pr.tc- , lice to put down polygamy, or to go i back to the ancient Jtllreys or tho I' modern McKean plan of packing juries to enforco the law. ! Whatever may be thought ol tho constitutionality of tho anti-p'.yanty anti-p'.yanty iwt of 1S72, we do not bo : lieve Senator Chri-tiaucy's bdl would Bland a moment before the Bupreme court of tnc United States, and we 'l ' further believe Uml it cannot pass U.c ' I opleal of eilh. r l.ran.-h of congress. i.i |