| Show A HOSTAJTOMSHWG OWi iOr I F i WE publish today thefull text of The opinion of the Supreme Court I of tieCbIca Statertn relaUonto the Idaho TestOath Ce We were surprised when the putport of the I decision reached U by press dispatch 1 dis-patch Wo are much more surprised after reading the opinion of the Cur Our astonishment is twofold two-fold Firsfcthat the Court did not wize upon points that might bare been taken which would have been 1 atjleasl pta uaiuIao nd tecouu tat It they have entirely avoided and ut terlyignored the question on which the fiiole case turns That question was not whether a person who breaks the law In relation I pi rela-tion t polygamy and polygamous practices or who aids and abets I I counsels or ad vises Its violation maybe may-be disfranchised Xp such hypothesis hypo-thesis W presented to the court J And yet this I made the basis of the whale argument Indulged In by i the court 0 1 nelr COr to oeJon 1 I 1rl I the Reynolds and furphy cases have little or no bearing upon the L Issue i this < They relate t j f t the prodicc of polygamy But incidentally t in-cidentally they touch on the que ton of bebef and the freedom of i I opinion and so far as they a rle 11 i Tnt t the present question they I are da4 against the conclusion 1 I which the Court has reached They li i declare tat i 1 only overt act J1 1 I against peace and good order tat i i 1 can be touched by legislation and Iriat Jlberty of faith and wor shiparu secured t all religionist p by Constitution and the Institu iI tions x > f this republic r I f I f Te aplant In this case a IOta V I IOt-a bigamist or polygamist and he did r J not ad or abet counsel or advise k anyone to commit an uflense against gmt I i I the laws He was simply a number if of a Church somt other members of T which t I claimed were polyga ft mlstsand did aid and abet the practice t prac-tice of polygamy The question was sir 0 whether he could b punished or deprived of any political rights or if i i privileges because thee acts t i of other people when Jt could not b t I shown and was not even claimed or If I 1 pretended that he had committed t i any such overt act himself This j question the Court h sot even alluded t The decision then I not a decision II de-cision of the mAlt in ltlgatluncx > rapt that the Court tays tho test oath law Is not Inviolation of the i Constitution and in Consltut yet giving their reasons for arriving at this I l l conclusion they are lent upon the H I fat aal rumenls which demon ti EiraUxl its uncoustitutlonality I I And this i not all The Court i mitt the claim of counsAfprtbe i i appellant an J goes s far as t put language into their Iaaguae Int mouths which 4 I the exact opposite of their words For instance tho Court says I It is assumed by counsel of the po 5 honor that because no mode of P1 S q I 8hipcan bo established 1 or religions j tenets enforced in this out therefore there-fore any form of worship may b fol l 4 f lowed and any tenets however de t etructiro of society may b held and advocated I asserted to b a part of t j the religions doctrines of those advo catmgand practicing them Butnoth ing is further from the troth Whilst i 1 legislation for the legltlon establishment of 1 1 S I religion I forbidden and its ur o ex 4 tO ercise permitted it does not follow r that everything hich may boos called can b tolerated Crime b2 lbs less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate i desig-nate as religion nt rgion Oh That counsel for the defendant 1i uju wttNsuu3Uiivsniay b reauuy seen from the following extract from their brief p 3 From the foregoing I conclusively appears that 1 man may entertain any religions opinion belief iaith or sentiment t senti-ment be choose s and there Is no civil power or authority that can in anyway I any-way directly otlndiroetly restrain or lap interfere with that opinion nor deprive i f prive him of any of the rights or ot privileges of citizenship because there It I equally cloar ha he msy in r I tha free exercise of < bU religion wor I sblp aorog to tbe dicte of his conscienceaud perform such prorm snc I acts1 and engage in such practices as he msy deem most acceptable t i h Creator provided he eommilt no f t criminal iffmu It I only when he has done an act that the law has declared J de-clared t b criminal that he can b 1 pjnlihed or deprived of any right common t his fellowcitizens and then he I not punished or thus doS do-S lrite because of hIS opinion bat b r cause of the commission of lbs a which ass been forbidden bjr JW I I not a crime and I this country I U cannot b mae a crime t belong tot I I 1 any particular churchand this 8 wo SI herrtr s oen though I teach bigamy and polygamy No i 0 legislative authority has ever attempted t I T I a attempt-ed to make such a lair Tho fall extent j ex-tent to which a statute might go would be to punish the act of b t pllh a bigamy or polygamy when committed The appellant in tho free exercise I ofreligion was entitled to his mem C bershlp in thS Morman Church He I ha1 committed no act forbidden by I law Therefore the provisionso j the i a Idaho statute difranehainy and Otto I t rg Am 11rm oJce are Itilu I tional ant i We elite without the slightest I f t hesitation that this position of 1 i tbe learned counsel Is impregnable I f Z 1 I I cannot b overturned by law or 1 logic The only thing the Court could do against I was to misunderstand misunder-stand or misrepresent It and that I they have done one or the other is 1 palpable They cay counsel lor the i 1 defendant have assumed that an i form of worship may b nnJ j hOw evertlestrucUve of society If t t edmcUeosey asserted f as-serted t b par of rellgbus doctrine doc-trine while counselactually say I I i that man may worship according I t UIB uicuius 01 conscience provided t cnenc p vided he oomrruil no criminal curt omm n cndnal ae 1 I and tat ho may L punished and i depriveI of rights common t his 0 fellow citizens Jor an act which h 1 been forbidden bylwl J The case of the appellant I thus stated by his counsel Ju their brief p II u Jtisoot denied and consequently t is admitted that be had the r i amUtbat t qualifications I qualifica-tions of citlzenshlDara nndrejJdenra I ne was not nnder toe disability of any conviction for treason elonyor bribery 1 brib-ery he was not registered or ntltlcd tovote at any other place he vras not F C i a bigamist polypamlst hadid not and wood not publicly privately or in any manner whatever teach advise 4 ad-vise counsel or encourage AY per I J eon t commit bigamy or polygamy I nor nny other crimoiand j yarded tZe e ComMutim cad tows as txlerprel 00 i I rc ttttythcamrttas the F + late if Upland any fcjeAsnioef the OiirtA rte car noOcrfirtiuiAJ 1cm I cerrD thl that the appel lant had totamltted no overt act igalnstlhelawnoralded nor ad vised others t do eo and further that ho I bad sworn he would nt And yet I ie whole argument of the Court to I I ercuee their decJlon J S Olrte agalnttheiraetffs of polygamy PfO PI he carrying into eject of doctrines and tenets which are opposed t tho criminal laws of the country as bough the appellant had been 7 ound ullty or this offense In commenting upon tho test oat te Court sayK With the erceptlon of perrons under IWit te Ul ton pros tier nosIJp drofunosund mind It simply excludes from the privilege of f voting or oc holding any ofHc o honor trust qr profit those who have teen convicted of certain offenses and ihoaa who advocate a practical nodal pace t the laws of the Territory and Justify and approve the commission of rimes forbiddeuliy This I perfectly astounding Theo The-o t the test oath I not founded upon anything thus es pressed by the court but upon the exclusion from the privilege of voting vot-ing and holding ofllca of citizens who have neither been convicted of those offenses nor have committed commit-ted cither of them nor have advocated advo-cated a practical resistance t the laws tior have Justified or approved the commission of crimps forbidden by the laws H r again it la evidentthat the Court have failed to grasp tbo language lan-guage and purr and effect of the test oath Ian or they have misstated stated It l teal Ily They oft o-ft out of their tbtementthe provision on which this whole contention con-tention h turned namely the power of the legislature t punish or deprive ot political rights and privileges a citizen who possesses ps all the statutory qualifications i and ojhas never broken the laws simply became he belongs to an organization some members of which it i claimed hare broken the laws and teach and aid in their lolatlon a vlouton The most charitable mot crtable hvnothesls In this connection I that the Court missed the main question Invoked in the controversy That they wereeointcnt supporting measures meas-ures for the suppression polygamous polygam-ous practices they overlooked the momentous question a to whether an innocent citizen can ta I pun pn ished and deprived rights because of the acts of others That mere membership fn a church which i said t teach practices condemned by the law although that membership member-ship does not involve the commis fcion oCiny of tho any t e practices may operate t the exclusion of a law supporting citizen from the political rights t his fellows This was the case before the Court This the Court bas not touched or alluded t This must nst b pressed upon the attention of the highest legal tribunal of the country orh and a decision must be obtained mut b obtlod on which there can ie no mistake The matter cannot b permitted to end her There I too much Involved in it The allImportant It 1lmprmt principle < > f religious liberty I at slake and every religious society In America should b interested In bringing I to a final issue The ground will I have t b gone over again |
