Show girat I 1 YESTERDAY his hia honor chief chie f 1 ustice mckean judge of the third judicial district court sitting in this city rendered a ruling in the cases of sandberg and horsley the former a native of sweden the latter of england who had bad applied for naturalization whereby both were denied the privilege of citizenship As this thia is a matter of grave importance tp many of the jho he residents dents of this territory it may not be amiss to review the salient points of the ruling othe of the court the abe grounds upon which this decision on is based or ostensibly BO so will ba be found in the first paragraph of the ruling rull ruil ug the thi whole of which ia Is published lis hied fied ia in to days NEWS from its pe herual rual ruai it will be seen that the right of naturalization one of the most indi cem few fe asdig asula iila itla guaranteed by the constitution i has been denied to ono one oneff of these the e applicants ow birr ply because the court objected obi acted ahls abis a his religious belief for it was not proved thad that mr baud band sandberg berg had violated la the least degree any law of the united states or that he was aught but a law abiding aud and wel wei well weil disposed person in the second paragraph of his ruling hi hia hip honor lays down a principle in law touching tho the abe abo rights of witnesses and in some bome a cm e states of prisoners with regard to ta answering questions he states that to answer is optional if to answer would criminate then they may refue refu refa e but sueh euch refusal almost invariably damages da magus magua ft we fail fall to see why a refusal when the right is guaranteed by law should work to the detriment of the tho questioned and think that it would fall to do BO so a court and jury ury ary strictly impartial that it has la thio taj case worked to the material injury of one of the parties interrogated horkley Hor sies gley ia is very evident for upon that only ia 19 the right to citizenship refused in fur fun further farther tier upon the rights and ind privileges of bf aliens allens when apply applying ind ini for naturalization the court f f I 1 I 1 quotes from be he second subdivision fj article six oi of the constitution 1 1 this constitution and atie the laws the united states which shallop bp I 1 in iq pursuance th thereat and ard all treaties mido or which ishall he mado made under i the authora authority y of or the united U states shall be the supreme law of the lajqi laud land etc and froni from the preceding concludes hal hat oak therefore ohp 8 wears swears to the constitution swears swears at the same time t tosu taho the United irate which bhail shall all ali Z ha made mado in p pursuance ursu i i alleQ thereof nothing at hieb hleb llo 00 the inhabitants I 1 lafi ilg of ibis this territory ay iy beek leek feek p 1 c controvert on tr overt ovart t i hib his honor next refers i rt an gamy gem law ar isa the ce or relevancy of which in th the pe senj oase case we fall fail to see eee aa as it does pot piot appear nat mat either oither of the parties in was a pa at the business usine busine so upon which they we were re before the court was at all connected ith ath with that question but had bad it been bein 0 so o let us aee iee bee see how far thenon the nonobservance non observe observance of that law lav would abrec affect loyalty to the constitution of the united states one oile article artigie of that sacred instrument declares that congress shall make mahe flo mno law respecting ie religion ligion nor prohibit ipg the free tree exercise thereof now the system of plural marriage among the latter iatter day saints however others may view t is regarded and practised practiced by them wholly as a part of their religion I 1 as ag oneff one of the most sacred and important principles ples pleA ot of their religious falth faith those who disbelieve dis belleve believe in what the world call mormonism Mormont sm may refuse re fu be to lecog i nize plural marriage as a belig religious ious loub in institution and tho the right of the mor corx mons to practice tico it aa as such buob but wo know that the latter view and practice tide tlde it only in iii ibis this ligh tand all pill the importance they attach to 0 it springs from fram regarding it as one of the fundamental principles of the plan of salvation Vy ebether yb hether ether or or not lhez the ight right toja to practice etlee ft if as such he be conceded ait L is a fact known doubtless hy by the court that kopini opinion 0 n a among the members of the legai legal pid pia profession as well as among the public generally is divided throughout the nation as regards regarda ihie ifie of the tho anti antl polygamy lav law and und BO idda as this is ai ti the depase case and constitutionality kii kil all y 0 of t refusing the privilege of or naturalization ralf rall za tl an even to practical ests not those who merely believe in the principle is a question the decision of which we think falls fails rightfully I 1 within m hin the province of the supreme court coart of the united states and the injustice and unconstitutionality of refusing it in iii such cases as those of sandberg and horsley can scarcely be questioned by any the court further says 1 suppose an applicant for naturalization 8 should bould state to the court that he objected to some provisions of the constitution and would not obey and support them or suppose he should state that he would not abao absolutely renounce his nis allegiance to his native country and that in the event of a war between that and this country he would fight for his native land shall the judge who presided presides eq in the court violate his own oath by admitting such a man mazi to citizenship zen ship or suppose the tho applicant F in a spirit of defiance refuses to answer in regard to these things how can the court possibly bie be fie satisfied that such a ban man mail ia is attached to the principles of the Cons constitution titia of the united states and well disposed dittos to the good order and happiness ot of the samee same iriesther in Iri either elther supposed case it jt would be a solemn mockery to administer the tho final oath of naturalization to such an alien we answer that such cases as the above are vastly different to the one which called forth this extraordinary ruling pa parties riles acting as supposed by the court do dd nottage the oath required by the constitution and could not possibly satisfy any court that they are vell well dla diA disposed posed towards the happiness and well being of the united states the court in this instance seems to regard the granting of the rights af naturalization as a favor and that consequently it h has as a right to some kind of extraordinary satisfaction as to the applicants worthiness wort wont and de clares dates that the latter iatter should expect and be expected to answer questions more strictly correct than a witness in a litigated case more than a party in a libel or criminal case As to the privileges enjoyed by american citizens none will dispute that the rights guaranteed by the constitution are more in accordance e with the dignity of honorable manhood and are far more extended than those thoss enjoyed by the citizens of any auy other othen nation hatlon WA the fact that thal they chev are accorded to and may bo be a acquired 1 b by lyie the citizens of the world is proof conclusive pat put the granting of them is no not t regarded as abany any auy particular favor by the constitution itself asta As to ther thet hight right of l a judge to ask risk and of abe thu in dmd creased reab reas rei rek responsibility of OT lo 10 the apoll applicant cant jh n naturalization pation cas caffo fo bayrer the questions pu him W we can pot not bee see the perti heney hency or re relevancy evancy 0 of the i remark of the court we think that an oath spurt of justly no matter matten what at aa the nature ax of the tho oase case under consideration la equally sacred aid and binding As jor for the dation referred t tp b by the court in the eases cases mso of df sens lens aliens sandberg and na hors labra feyall ley lex ail ali all required by bk law n namely niely 9 guarantees as to thor characters for morality good tood order ac was as on hand band an and d that was all the court hadet hadee had a right to d or expect t the lahas bahas nixed fixed that hat and no edez ha has abay ab right to go beyond ll 11 i irdill Ants anth merean the fe of h his e honor judge dge mckean ic tye lye the negligence of 0 ther other 0 courts oli arts in relation to are orthy worthy of a passing re kenark nark if his honor referred to the netlon action of courts gil bil outside taide talde of pf this territory they are yae completely comple tily irrelevant hut but ut irto if to the course of any of hig big predecessors in this fils territory we would like to know if hib his knowledge of that negligence is derived from the records of the court itself or merely from report we opine that it springs merely from the latter in which cabe case we are of the opinion that his his views and feelings as lis a private citizen may be has no ao business to know anything of the sort bort in his official capacity the same is also true aa as to his avowal concerning the violation of the t he law laws officially h he has no k knowledge oweedie XI ow ledie w whatever of any such uch violation the closing portion of the opinion is particularly unc tutis and the question questions arf propounded pounded by his 11 honor onor onon we to answer the people people of this territory Terri tery or the wry very great majority of them the members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints view american civilization liza ilza tion tiou as the highest type ed by humanity guaranteeing as it does coall cl classes asses asseg of its citizens the fullest measure of ct religious liberty at and A the firs blad fiad most sacred duty of american citizens they hold to b be th the e I 1 jf reser of those kights lights intact t in all their thein integrity and pleat plent tude they believe most emphatically that the constitution is the supreme law of the thel landane lan land dand and all laws framed in accordance with or purs pursuant bant bani to the principles and spirit of that thap tha sacred instrument are regarded by them as binding in the degree the questions propounded by the court as to what pretended law do they the latter day saints mean ana ana 1 what positive laws of man do they mean to defy have no bearing on the question at issue but nevertheless to post his honor we will briefly answer them no pretended law of god w will ill iii they the members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints obey but the law of god revealed ik in either ancient or modern revelation they will observe regardless of results when commanded by heaven to do BO so so fanas faras far as the positive laws of man are re concerned they will defy or rather resist mist to their thein utmost every one abio ahio abrogating ab ro tue the commands of the most nigh high or which encroaches measure of ana and liberty g guaranteed by that greate all ch charters arterA arters 0 of f human aright promulgated by Y mam mah nan the amer Amet american amerlean ican i ud constitution considering g thisie this to be one of the highest and most sacred duties devolving upon them as as citizens of this great republic |