Show THE SUPREME COURT DECISION WE have just received by telegraph that portion of the ruling of the supreme court of the unit united ed states in the reynold reynolds rey Bey nold noid case which relates to the main point at issue namely the constitutionality of the anti polygamy act of 62 connected with which are the questions of the constitutional scope of religious liberty and of criminal intent the report seema seems yet yel tobe incomplete the arguments of the chief justice are the same old oft refuted pleas of the opponents of our faith the attempt to harmonize legislation against an integral part of a reh ref religious lilous system with the coti tut ional proviso foi toi bidding forbidding buch euch legislation and to draw a line between faith falth and aud practice limiti limiting Dg religious liberty to the former and excluding A 41 from the latter is painfully weak and borders on absurdity to bay eay that the constitution merely guarantees freedom of opinion and not liberty of action in religious matters ja to contradict its language and to make its enni effi effects acts a nullity congress could not if it would prevent or abridge religious opinion A man ean can an believe what seems right to him under the most despotis despotic government whatever that seven sever ever cursed humanity the only liberty that any legislature or ruler could impair or destroy is liberty of 0 action and if the words free exercise in Ju the constitution do not mean tho car dar crying into effect of religious beliefs 1 they have no signification at all of course there must be some bounds to the liberty which is contemplated tem plated inthe 0 supreme ladof the land it cannot be extended to the commission of things mala inbe inse in se no one must be permitted to commit acts which are essentially criminal in themselves under the plea ot reli roll religious gibus where shall the line of demarcation be drawn how far does the constitutional tut ional ronal protection to the free exercise of religion extend the chief justice says congress was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order granting this can it be truly shown that the practice of plural marriage under the divine law ot of the church of jesus jesua christ of latter day saints violates any social duty or subverts good ordel we say not the facts support us in this assertion some of our very best men who are patterns ut of social virtue and prominent promoters of good or order derand and who would be acknowledged aa as budh such in any community where mere prejudice against pl plural ira lra marriage arriage a was not allowed to b bo t the he judgeware judge yare sAre are the husbands of mora more wives than one no better or more exemplary members of bf society can be found upon the surface of the tho globe the jeffersen Jef ref is most unfortunate for the position of the chief justice it has never been shown that the marriage system of ou our r church has ever broken out into overt acts against peace and good order therefore it is not i necess necessary ary for the rightful burp purposes 0 ses bes of civil government for its ita officers to interfere it is then aa a matter that lies solely between man and his god and by the judges own showing outside of the powers of congressional legislation the essence of crime is the intent inte te nt latter day saints who practice plural marriage under the regulations of the church of which they are members honestly neatly ho believe it to ie be right more mote than that under certain circumstances they sincerely consider themselves under tho most obligations to en gage anit in it they not only have the example of ancient worthies who walked and talked with god but are in possession of a positive command ot of the almighty enjoining it upon aillem as a auie mao mac in obeL this divine behest they infringe upon no persons behta aithar if nf ilfe ufa bavia bayya darit ty er or liberty wherein do the elements of crime appear in their marriage relations who cannot perceive the essential difference between the carrying out of this religious ordinance and acts such as stealing swindling maiming assaulting saul sault ting izig killing or injuring or destio destroying ying property congress declared an establishment of our religion a crime this did not and could not make it a crime per be e and those who have practiced practised their religion although they may have violated violate this enactment cannot lin sin in reason in justice or good common sense be pronounced cr criminals in reality we hareno further space or time to discuss this sube bube subject ct th the 2 i dispatches 11 having sving only arrived this afternoon hs |