OCR Text |
Show THE ILLEGAL HIERARCHY. The speech of Chairman Critehlow, who presided so well over the American county Convention, made at its opening, .was largely devoted to the proper use and definition of the word "hierarch," and to the proposition that Senator .Sutherland's speech in bclittlement of the American party and its aims and principles was unworthy of that Senator. Sena-tor. This latter, of course, was a char-itablo char-itablo view to take of tho junior Senator Sena-tor from Utah. But there are others who might reasonably hold, and who in fact do hold, that Sutherland's speech on this point was exactly what was to be expected of him, was a shining exponent ex-ponent of his mcn(nlil3' and character, and was in fact quite wortbvv of him and his record; an exact fir. With respect to Mr. Critchlow's position posi-tion in defining the word "hierarchy," it is a clear case that ho is judiciallj' correct in his definition, and that when he set forth that tho dominance of a hierarchy in this country under our Constitution Con-stitution and laws is impossible, ho was from the legal and general standpoint speaking with entire accuracy. Legally a hierarchy or the dominance of hior-archs hior-archs in the political and civil affairs of this country is out of the question. We may add that legally the establishment establish-ment and maintenance of a system of polygamy throughout a Slate and in large areas and communities of other States is also legally impossible, aitd without; the least justification in constitution, consti-tution, statute, or civilization. In Jyith cases the law and the enlightenment of the age are absolutely against the prevalence prev-alence of any such domination or of any such system. It is clear, then, that tho rule of a hierarcb-, if it is established at all, must be established in defiance of constitution con-stitution and statute, precisely as polygamy is so established. It will not do to say that because these things arc against the law that therofore ihey do not exist. It would be unsound to contend, con-tend, as tho church organ constantly contends, that because no despotism of priestcraft or hiernrchs can bo constitutional constitu-tional or legal or in any form legally established in this country, therefore it does not exist. It is impossible in that case, precisoly as it is impossible in the case of the establishment of polygamy, to say that because ono is or both arc against the law and tho constitution, therefore H103' do not exist. In tho enso of polygamy, the existence of u polygamous system among tho leaders of tho Mormon church, "tho elite of this people," as a Tabernacle speaker once graphically claimed them to be, cannot be denied. It is an open, notorious, ecandalouB fact. In like manner, man-ner, while- the rule of tho hierarchy in an portiou of this country its against the Constitution and tho statutes, that rule corlainly exists nevertheless. It is constantly asserted by the leaders of the church and specifically claimed by the presont leader of tho Mormon Church, where he said that a man who admits his right to rnlo him spiritually and denies his right to rule him temporally, tem-porally, lies in tho face of God. So that we have hero not only in fact a hierarchy hier-archy in defiance of Constitution and statute, but wo have the chief hierarcb of ail asserting unresorvedly, comprehensively, compre-hensively, and emphaticall3, hia absolute abso-lute right to rule tho people in their temporal as well as their spiritual affairs. af-fairs. This claim of authority to rule has been contemptibly submitted to by the members of-' the dominant church-here in Utah for upwards of sixty years; it 1 has always been tho rule of the church; and tho aim of the leaders hero was, aud it has been persisted in continually to tho present day, to establish hero in Utah an absolute theocracy, not only all-comprehousive and all-controlling, but specifically denying tho right of any other form of government to interfere inter-fere with it in any form or degree. So that in spite of the Constitution and of tho statutes, we have in fact a hierarchy in Utah. This hierarchy is in tho saddle; it "rules the people unrestrictedly; unre-strictedly; it denies emphatically and in tot.o the right of tho people to rule themselves, and asserts its power to bo direct from God and indisputable by man. The old maxim, vox populi, vox dci. has been explicitly condemned from the Tabernacle pulpit, and instead of it tho law, vox dei, vos populi, has been plainly aud definitely substituted, nnd pronounced to be the law of tho church, bindiug upon the people. The voice of God, through the priesthood, must bo accepted by the peoplo in all their relations re-lations of life, without qualification, modification, resistance, or criticism. And that is what has created and sustained sus-tained in Utah tho dominant ecclesiasticism, ecclesiasti-cism, defiant of Constitution and statutes, stat-utes, which wo term, and which proporly is termed, the "hierarchy." Mr, Critehlow did a valuable service in drawing attention to tho lawless character of this hierarchical establishment establish-ment in Utah. In spite of the unconstitutional uncon-stitutional and illegal nature of this hierarchic rule here, it is in practical and absoluto effect, precisely as the law-defying practice of polygamy has boon established and practiced in Utah for two generations of mankind. |