| Show A AND INVALID LAW bitic rule role or ruin clique in idaho are in the memorial business as well as their fellow conspirators in utah they are moving upon congress to pass the woodburn bill which embodies the same false principles as are contained in the idaho test oath act this argues their lack of confidence in their own enactment it is so glaringly unjust unconstitutional and undemocratic that they are afraid it will not stand aland the test of judicial inquiry and therefore imagine that if congress can be persuaded rounded to pass the woodburn b they will obtain a new lease of political litreal life which may last at least lor or a season or until the validity of the congressional law can be determined before a competent court this would give t them he m at least the advantage of a tittle little time it may be argued that the idaho enactment has been already determined to be valid but that is a mistake it oas bas only been tested on a side issue and that before a district court it has yetto yet to be passed upon by a higher tribunal and in fact the whole question has not yet been squarely put before a competent court the ruling of judge rays hays delivered when he first came to the territory and involve involving ing i something incidental to the statute did not comprehend the whole question which may yet be presented in a more comprehensive manner that shall take in all sides and go down to the foundation of the shaky concern when the instability of the measure and the infamous purpose for ahu which it was constructed are made plain we do not believe it will stand in any court for a da day ahe the ob object eject of the law is evident upon its face it I 1 is s to disfranchise a large body of citizens in order to deprive a certain political party of their votes the intent itself was criminal it was to abri abridge oge and in fact destroy the privileges and immunities of citizens sv it was to effect a party sparty purpose jt it J t was to take away property for the franchise is property when acquired without due process of law it was revolutionary in purpose and effe effect ct not only were the act and intent nefarious but the manner of its execution was unlawful attempted in the form of law it was a violation of the supreme law the constitution of the united states for it was legislation against an establishment oil of religion it was making faith criminal and prescribing a religious test as a qualification for office there is no need to quote the constitution on all these points the provisions therein that relate to them are well known the idaho act goes beyond the law of congress which franchises disfranchises dis practical bigamist biga mists a and polygamists the latter relates relate only to acts the former ormer goes into th the domain of belief the edmunds act says in effect that those who violate its provisions shall not vote or hold office but the idaho statute says that they who belong to the same church as the polygamists and bigamists biga mists but who do not violate the law themselves shall be also des priced rived of the ballot and ot of the right to hold old office and it enforces this by a test oath in hostility to 0 article VI of the constitution which pro provides yides that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust the idaho act franchises disfranchises dis any person who is a member of any order organization or association which teaches advises counsels or encourages members or devotees or any other persons to commit the crime of bigamy polygamy or any other crime defined by law either as a rite or ceremony of such guch order organization or association or other otherwise thus a citizen who commits no crime himself is to be treated as a criminal because he belongs to a church which allows other persons to enter into a rite or ceremony that maybe may be construed as in viola timi of law suppose celibacy was crime as polygamy is now then every member of the catholic church would be adjudged a criminal who bellowed to the church which enjoined cefi celibacy bacy on its priests crime consists ot of some overt ovart act the law COM cannot not touch belleff belied bel lefe neither can cabit it punish membership in U any socie society ty or association ot of any kind whatever no ina matter I 1 r what wha tenets aw arft taught aught so long as the individual does g pot not break the lw this is oreb ali in the opinion of the ba court of the united bisp stages ba kh the bigamy ease case of george reynolds it is well known that the court ruled adversely in his case and decided that the anti bigamy act of 1802 1862 was constitutional but touching on the question now in con the court referred to the history of the adoption of the amendment to the constitution protecting religious religions liberty and showing that jefferson and madison had contended for this in viania virginia the court quoted the sayings of those ose Ulu Wa meu men and from the preamble to the bill introduced by mr jefferson which passed the virginia legislature in which religious freedom I 1 is deli defined ped and after a recital that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or er propagation propagation of principles on supposition sit on of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty it is declared that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good ordery the court added addea in these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the state to here is a plain enunciation of constitutional law the church may teach what it pleases no matter what ill tendencies its teachings may be supposed ased to have they cannot be interfered with by the civil power thus the mormon church so called may teach that its members member 8 may beers practice blural plural marriage the mem members may believe in those teachings some of them may carry their belief into action but the church cannot be de barred from teaching its creed neither can the law tou touch ch those of its members who do not practice it it can only reach out and handle the individuals divi duals who commit overt acts against peace and good order we will not stop here to dispute as to whether men who marry more nivea than one do auy anything thing against the peace and good order of society though that is open to extended argument but if it I 1 is admitted that practical bigamists biga mists and polygamists even if they believe in the religious rightfulness of that marriage system are amenable to the law it must also be admitted that those who do no practice but only believe the principle cannot be lawfully lawf ally brought within the claims of the law the idaho act is most emphatically in opposition to the ruling 0 oi the un united 1 ted states supreme court upon this very question still further quoting from mr jefferson these words believing with you that religion is a matter which 1011 lies les solely between a man and his god that lie he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship that the leals legislative powers of 0 the government reach actions only aud not opinions I 1 contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole american people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof the supreme court adds coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured congress 9 ress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion but was left freel to reach actions which were in viol violation klion of social duties or subversive of good order the constitution of the state of new york provides that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession prof assion and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all mankind the new hampshire bill of rights eights says 4 no subject shall be hurt molested or restrained in his person liberty or estate for worshipping wor shipping god in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience or for his religious profession sentiments or persuasion provided he I 1 doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship the pennsylvania declaration of rights declares nor can any man who acknowledges the being of a god be justly deprived of any civil right as a citizen on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship all this is in accord with the supreme law of the laud land and with the rulings of the court of last resort anything contrary to it is an encroachment croach ment of the state upon the church it is an attempt to destroy religious freedom the idaho test oath law is beyond question destructive tive of religious libert liberty and would not be tolerated tolerate ll 11 for a moment against any other people than the cormons mormons Mor mons 11 the question to be decided when the test shall come is this can courts in this free republic afford to rule in face of IL a plain constitutional provision and the decision of the highest tribunal in the land against the members of a religious body on account of their opinions or membership in an unpopular church simply to gratify bigotry aid in the bolstering up of a party and help he p to prevent from voting as good a body of eltia citizens ens as can be found in the th e I 1 land ind because they will not vote to suit t their beir would be oppressors we do not believe that such an infamous and anti american measure as the idaho test oath law will stand the test of a full judicial investigation nor that congress will enact anything conceived in the same sin shorn in the same iniquity iniquity and bearing the sams same likeness 0 of antl anti republicanism and the brand of ineffable shame upon its hideous face |
