| Show DIFFERING RING WITH THE COURT OF LAST RESORT IT is pretty well known that the latter day saints consider that the legislation of congress against their system of plural marriage is indirect in direct violation of article one of the amendments to tb the e constitution of the united states and this notwithstanding the decision of the supreme court of the united states sustaining the validity of the anti bigamy act of july 1 the reason for this belief which we share in common with our co religionists 0 may be briefly stated thus our system of plural marriage is founded upon a revelation from god through joseph smith the prophet in which the principles of celestial marriage orin arriage for eternity are arc explained pla pia ined it is therefore a part of our religion whether other people view it in that light or not makes no difference to our faith it is religion to us if not to them we claim the right to choose for ourselves in matters of belief and accord to others equal rih rights ts in this respect we would not c coerce them we deny their right to coerce us I 1 marriage rl a ge may not be considered b by some people a matter of religion at alt ait all ail if they choose to degrade it into a mere civil relationship entered into under a in mere ere cla cia civil contract like a bargain for a house or a partnerships partnership in business that is their affair not ours and if we look upon it as of divine origin and subject to divine regulations as a sacred and holy oly con condition tion to be e entered into only after religious ordinances and subject to ecclesiastical rules we think we have haye ave the rig right t to consider it religious in J the fullest sense of the word but we shall be met here with the hackneyed objection adopted by the supreme court of the united states in their ruling on this subject that on this principle widow burning and aud even murder might be introduced under the name of religion like the suttee and thu is ot of east ind india a to which we maee maue make ahe the oft repeated reply that the secular law has tue tiie undoubted right to interpose when under the plea of r religion c the tiie natural civil or rights of individuals are invaded if life liberty property or the pursuit of 01 happiness is interfered with under the name or pretext of rell nell religion ion lon human law may of right intervene to protect the citizen and ana restrain or punish the offender but mornion mormon plural marriage does not act in tills this way but is of life and liberty and aids taase who believe in its rightfulness in their pursuit of ha happiness without preventing others from seeking it in another direction therefore it is not only a matter of religion as marriage has been from time immemorial but is free from the objection that attaches to anything under the name of religion which interferes with human rights but we frequently hear a great outcry at the impudence pu d ence 11 and disloyalty of the Mor Mormon mons ss in daring to hold opinions opinion contrary to a ruling of the highest court of the them land it is asked is not that decision final and conclusive and if so are not tile the mormons cormons contumacious and treasonable in instill still arguing against it well weli we think we have a right to ou our opinions on any matter religious social philosophical or political notwithstanding a decision from irom any human source or authority particularly if that decision is manifestly weak and will not bear the light of reason or the logic of fair criticism there is neither treason nor disloyalty in disputing the arguments or combat tin ting the conclusions of any man or set of men or of any tribunal tribu naf or government that men have set up and we have just as much right as other people to dissent from ridicule refute and expose the decisions of a court or the onil ofil official cial clai doings of any other public officials who are all the servants not the masters or sovereigns of the people athe decisions of the supreme court of the united states are aro final in law so long as they remain fixed but bat they are not necessarily so in ethics we have just as much right to an opinion after an adverse decision from that or any other court as we had before eor the functions of courts are not to coerce the mind nor to compel coin jl ci dence their rulings have a bearing U upon n overt acts and those who car carry their thein mo 1 r dissent into violations of law sustained by those ruling rulings sare are liable to suffer the penalties atta attached aed zed thereto but this does not take away the right 0 of f f free ree opinion nor the freedom of speech and of the press to express it men are not disloyal or treasonable for differing with the president or with con ress and the judiciary including the iress supreme court is just as much open to criticism as any other branch of the government there is another thing to be considered ed and it is this that we desire to make k e prominent to today day the decisions of the supreme court of the united states are not infallible they are arc liable to tol be reversed therefore what is called final this year may be overturned next year and that which silly people claim it is treasonable to dispute today to day days maybe may be ruled against tomorrow to morrow by the same body that it we have in mind the recent of the court of last resort in the legal tender case in 1870 the court decided that Con congress ress had no constitutional power to issue legal tender notes but in 1871 the sam acourt which however hoever had changed somewhat in personnel heid held that the acts of Congress which it had pronounced against the year before were constitutional tut ional but these laws were only upheld by the court as war measures They were pronounced essential to the safety ot of tile the nation and demanded by the exigencies igen cies of the times the court aced aeed agreed g r that acts may be adapted to the exercise erae erze of lawful ua power and ampro appropriate to it in seasons of ex exigency which would be inappropriate at other times iines but now the supreme court decides that whether anwar in war or peace whether there is or is not nota a public exigency congress has the constitutional power to issue legal tender notes and that without limit this is a complete and entire reversal of the decision of 1870 if if the highest tribunal in the land is infallible in its decisions here are two exactly opposite rulings each infallible and to differ with either of which according to anti Mor mormon mons I 1 lo logic lole le would be impudent and disloyal lil liy and treasonable 11 not only did many commercial men appo oppose se the first of these decisions of the supreme court but lawyers of experience I 1 t dissented from it when the court took a judicial summersault summer sault a still greater expression of disapproval was hearland hear dand now the disapprobation of both legal and financial experts is still great erand more widely expressed the annexed paragraph from the chicago nem new indicates the feeling which has been aroused the easte eastern rn press is as unanimous in denouncing the legal tender decision of the supreme court as the court was unanimous in adopting it the editorials of the boston advertiser and the new york times are fair emens of the attacks made upon it and they exhaust the vocabulary of invective in their denunciations they denounce it as unconstitutional subversive of ordinary principles and methods of trade and as tending to introduce into the business of the country a theory of ethics which may eventually stop at no outrage of the government upon the sacred rights of property or the honorable and honest obligation of contracts now on the theory that the I 1 I 1 mor alor mons are rebellious contumacious impudent disloyal treasonable etc etc because they think and say that the anti bigamy act of 1862 is unconstitutional what epithets can be properly applied to eastern editors who express the views of many eminent lawyers a e for not only maintaining that arhe tsi isi the lewal legal tender acts are unconstitutional losif but for attacking the decision of the he united states supreme court with invectives so many and fierce as to ex aalst their vocabulary of denunciation if the I 1 mormons cormons Mor mons ought to be dis fran chased and rele relegated atea to serfdom for daring to differ with a court which says one thing today to day and a totally conflict conflicting ing lug thing tomorrow to morrow what ought to be done to those legal and literary dissenters in the east who so violently oppose the latest dictum of that august tribunal we have what we consider mo most S t e excellent X reasons for holding to our views of the unconstitutionality of the laws of 1802 1862 and 1883 wherein they legislate against an establishment of olour our religion and prohibit the free sree exercise thereof and the opinion of the learned judges sustaining the validity of the act of july 1 1862 instead of changing chancing cha neing our views only serves fo establish and confirm them eor por if no better ar argument I 1 u than is contained in that opla opinion ion lon can be made to establish the decision it is certainly undeserving of the endorsement dor of any logical mind and is strong evidence in favor of the opposite to its conclusions but whether that decision is night right or wron wrong conclusive or doubtful wise or foelix foolish from its own language we have the right to believe what seems proper and just concerning it and to express that belief and this we intend to do as occasion offers and necessia necessity essit y seems to require whether we offend or please the anti antl mormon I 1 bigots who would not only exterminate our fon ton practising practicing the religion revealed to us from froin on high but would stamp out free speech and kill free thought if that thou thought ht and speech differs from their orthodoxy in law faw or religion |
