| Show FURTHER EDITORIAL COMMENTS As WE believe that the sentiments of influential newspapers in opposition to the ruling of the supreme court of the united states on the confiscation question will prove interesting to the large majority of our readers we reproduce a number of editorials in addition to those already published in these columns the denver republican after introducing the subject remarks there is no doubt that congress had the power to declare declara the mormon church corporation dissolved in order to reach this conclusion 0 one t i e need not consider the question of whether the church as is a corporation had violated its charter or had bad done anything else contrary to the laws of the land congress had power to annul any territorial rit orial enactment and it might have done this in the ca case ae of the mormon church corporation on the ground of public policy without giving any reason for its action it would seem that if there is any fault to be found with the decision it is in this that it fails to provide for a distribution of the assets assefa of the corporation po ration among the members of the mormon church the conclusion was long ago reached that the common law rule by which the property of a dissolved corporation es esche cheated atod to 10 the crown or the tt WAS too harsh it has long lem been 1 recognized that it is the province of a court of equity to step in and distribute the assets of a dis solved corporation among its creditors and stockholders or members to take the property of the mormon church and give it to the public schools of utah is to confiscate that property viewed in the light of the tice in courts of equity and or Sra gr in airily confiscation is considered nothing less than injustice the republican cites decisions of the supreme court which have bren been reversed things public opinion will endorse this decision though lawyers may dissent from it and seems to think 16 public opinion 1011 ought to rule this would be very dangerous dan gerou to the public welfare for public opinion la Is not often based on sound law and ic is as variable and unstable as the wind A judicial tribunal ought not to be influenced by public opinion however widespread but by law as limited by constitutional principles the albany N Y wanes makes these pertinent comments this is probably the largest confiscation of church property that has ever taken place under any government on this continent and it is the only instance within our recollection where our government has taken possession for itself of any lands or chattels devoted to pious purposes it is a bad act and a dad bad precedent and it is to be very much regretted that the highest judicial tribunal in the land has given it its approval congress Congre says sa ya the th e constitution shall make no J law r respecting pec ting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and if the framers of that great charter had been able to look into futurity and anticipate the acts of their successors in lawmaking law making we cannot doubt that thai they would have added nor interfere with or control property devoted to religions uses but who can forsee the future and who in the days of thomas jefferson would have expected the spoliation of an unpopular and absurd religion in the days of benjamin harrison this is the first seizure of church property by the civil power here in the united states but bul what guaranty have we that others are not to follow who knows that the church property 7 of the quakers of the methodists of the jews or of the roman catholics will not be treated in the same way some day men and brethren have we not entered upon a path of danger chief justice fuller thinks we have and his brave and distinct dissent from this unhappy policy will make him remembered in he future our chief justice appears to be more than a mere lawyer more than a mere partisan he is a statesman the dubuque iowa TeM telegraph graph devotes considerable space to a lucid explanation epla nation of the case and the decision and adds objectionable though polygamy be and necessary as it is that it a should c be destroyed those who regard the question from the standpoint of equity will be more disposed to coincide with the minority than with the majority of the court the latter defends its approval a tg of the confiscation on the ground that the enormous proceeds of the es ea cheated property were employed to propagate polygamy and to promote an organized rebellion against the laws of the united states As to the first of these grounds it is a now new principle of jurisprudence that because a man is guilty of a criminal violation of the law his goods are confiscate to the state he may be deprived of his bis liberty but it is an entirely novel proposition that he can be also deprived of his property and this is what the decision affirms for if a corporation may be des despoiled oiled of its posses possessions gions for a crim ina anaf fact act according to the same principle and by parity of reasoning an individual may be regarding the second ground it may be said with all due respect for the court that the rebellion in which the mormons cormons were engaged was not of a character to warrant the confiscation of their property it is true that they defied the law but as they did not take up arms against the united states nor levy war against them they were not guilty of treason and treason is the only omy crime for which government can rightfully confiscate property however unsound though it appears to be the decision will stand as an authoritative and final definition of the power of congress to deal with cases of this character it estable bes a precedent which may yet prove to be far reaching an and or of vital importance certain churches are rapidly accumulating vast properties and in time they may employ the power conferred by the r possessions to influence the direction of state affairs in their own interests this could be construed as being as dangerous an evil to society and government as the practice of polygamy without doubt under the decision just rendered congress would have I 1 he right to destroy the evil when it manifested itself by the very means employed to abolish plural marriages indeed the lawmaking makar power could go further the contention contention says the court that polygamy is part f the mormons cormons Mor mons religious legious belief is a sophistical idea this constitutes congress the judge of what religious ideas are sophistical and what are not and invests that body with the authority to 10 prohibit even f t 3 the extent of property confiscation fis cation practices conducted in the name and under the cloak of reli religion Kion but which in its judgment are inimical to the public welfare it is a fair assumption that if any church organization as such should attempt the destruction est ruction of the public school system congress would have the power to punish it and minimize its capacity for the infliction of further harm by forfeiting property its to the state the decision is one of the most extraordinary ever rendered by the court and it will occasion widespread comment and discussion the rhe altoona pa limes imes A says and pointedly dl 1 the united states supreme court rendered a decision the other day sus laiking the constitutionality of the edmunds law aich dissolved the mormon church aud forfeited all property in excess of to the government this means that the united states government can confiscate all the valuable church and other property now belonging to the mor mons except which amount they must leave them this may be all right but it does not seem so when one looks at it in a social sense the government can make the mormons cormons live up to the federal laws without stealing their property from them 11 the lausing lansing michigan journal gives particulars of the case and after showing the falsehood of the attacks made upon the dissenting judges judge s remarks in the view of the dissenting democratic judges there is no question t as to I 1 he power of congress to suppress polygamy find and punish it as a crime but they deny that this can be d ne in the manner provided for by the edmunds act which substantially adjudged the mormon church guilty without giving it a judicial hearing and then ceedee to appropriate its it property to government uses if this view is not good law good sense and good morals then the average american mind is woefully deficient in its conception of what constitutes legal justice and sound legal practice the terre haute ind cowsette has the annexed pointed editorial the decision of the supreme court of the united states affirming the constitutionality of the abet of con congress or ress confiscating the property of the mormon church is the most dangerous menace or rather the deadliest stab to religious freedom that has ever been witnessed in this country carried to its legitimate conclusion it clothes congress with a power which an irresponsible tyrant would hardly dare to use for fear of dynamite to confiscate the eh church u ach goik property of a people who believe the book of mormon was waa divinely inspired carries with it the right when congress pleases to confiscate the church property or other property proper property tr for that matter of people who be believe the old and new testament are inspired or the proper property tyl of those who do not believe they are in alired this interpretation of the constitution is itself unconstitutional it is contrary to the fundamental idea of freedom and the rights of man it is a scandalous out gustv gIvin to 0 our u thinking the court must be reorganized rr or the constitution must be changed mormonism in our opinion is a snare and a delusion a night nightmare miLre of a religion a fraud and a cheat in its inception and foolishness in its practice but the right of those who hold that faith to is as sacred as the right of a any in man to hold to his faith and this earrk earth Is going to rival hell if we begin quarreling with one another in a deadly way about our respective faiths our only safety and the right and the decent and the just thing to do is to let every human being hold whatever religious belief he pleases whether a person thinks there is a god or a god gd whether he thinks he ought to be worshiped in this thir that or the other way or in no way at all whether whet herTie he thinks there is or a heaven heave u or a hell whether be thinks he has or a soul is his own look out and nobody elsea for our part we would rather stand in the shoes of ther the man who honestly thought that what shall prove to be the wildest guess was the true belief provided he lets other othe r people alone in their beliefs than in the shoes of the best beat guesser at the my mysteries series of life and death but who was inn with this devils doctrine that it was his bux business iness and for the lords sake to steal the property of that other polygamy is not mormonism it is an overt act of mormons cormons and against the laws punish the polygamist but punish him in his person peron to take even his prop property eity ty is to steal and stealing never was constitutional I 1 I 1 this is from that vigorous champion of equal rights the alexandria va cassette Glaze ae the V U S supreme court last week temporarily pora rily vacated its mandate to escheat the properly of the mormon church to the united united states government in order that some means might be found by which that property could be returned to these whose mone money y had bought it with a provision that it should 8 h not be used for propagating the mormon religion and yet the first amendment that was made to the constitution of the united states declares that con congress ess shall hall make no law respecting an establishment ent of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof 1 in the first tree free legislature of virgiinia virgiaia Virg Virgi iBia isia 1776 religion was made free chiefly n n J oy by reason of a memorial from the presbytery y tery of hanover which declared there re is no argument in favor of establishing the christian religion beligio i but what may be pleaded for establishing the tenets of mohammed by those wo believe in the koran now the mohammedan like the mormon religion sanctions polygamy the decision of the court shows how easy it has become to override a plain provision of the organic law of the land and the general ae ac quiescence u 1 essence in that decision shows the great lo 10 change ha age that has taken place in public opinion on the particular subject referred to since the establishment of the government the new haven conn be register gives details of the ewe case and says the language of the constitution upon this point is br ef and simple beet section on 3 8 article IV pr provides ovies that dongress congress shall have power to dispose of and and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property b longing to the united states the supreme court assumes umes that the territories are the property of the united states and that congress has the right to breake break up an any L corporation which it has reason to bele believe va is subversive to the laws of the country the difference ferenee dif of opinion among the justices was as to whether congress could legally go as far as to confiscate property in order to secure the enforcement of law law this is a ve very 1 nice point and one that many laymen aul wul disagree upon the general sentiment of the country is unanimous upon the desirability of crushing out polygamy no ore one disputes that it ought never to nave have been allowed to gain a foothold upon our soil the espousal by the mormons cormons of this UL lawful practice has made that church cordially hated and yet it may be and is questioned whether it is right to go so BO far as to conlis confiscate cate the property property perty oil of the church eo corporation oration A rat rather gro er dangerous precedent de is establish est established ablis h ed which might possibly lead to bad results in the future and to the substantial overthrow of free religion we have always held that it would be better to attain the desired results in some other 0 way the hutchinson Hutchi neon kan news reasons in this way while there is nothing about the mormon on church to commend it to the sympathy of an intelligent public it is not certain what the effect of a confiscation of its property may mav be or to what extent the same decision may apply to the property of af other churches held tor for other purposes than worship and burial there ate aie some very wealthy churches in the united states churches holding in fee simple ten times as much property as the mormon church held and the right to hold bold it has never been questioned e s tinned by the judicial authorities of the wa united ni ted states while the same principle of escheat of all excess over an above and property held for worship and burial purposes may not be held to apply to them it will be a hard matter to explain satisfactorily to the mormon why it should not and by what constitutional authora authority congress and the courts apply to one denomination nomi a principle it does dees not apply to all scores of articles are headed aca A death bia to mormonism the nonsense of this is perceived ived by some men sensible sible writers amo among ng them the editor of the toledo ohio own mercial who hits this notion therol owing lowing death blow polygamy we are told has obtained another deathblow death blow the latest is said to be more deada deadly in its effects than any previous death glow blow the first death blow visited on the mormon religion fell upon the prophet joseph smith at nauvoo ills and from that time to this polygamy has gone on growing and thriving on death agne blows ow a it will be no surprise to the corn con mercial to see a boom |
