Show THEY ABIDE BY THE LAW THIC UTAH commission TO JOIN THE ever since dickson be bennett n hollister dooley and others waited on the utah utah commission in an air attempt to get geo the latter to change their instructions to registrars to conform with the loyal ilow league desire the reply of the commis sion has been eagerly looked for though no eb change a 1 e was anticipated from the stand t taken alen by judge carlton cariton in his bis letter to baskin and dooley yesterday afternoon the following letter was sent to the committee OFFICE OP OF UTAH commission 1 SALT LAKE BLAKE CITY april 28 1887 son ron 0 benidt W DEAR SIR in response to a by a committee ot of gentlemen that called on this commission several averal days ago in reference to a change of the form of the me registration oath which has been furnished to td the registration gi officers throughout the territory we would say that we are not bot convinced oi of the propriety or necessia baccei essit sity ys of making such change tor for a number of reasons among others first because we are satisfied that the oath furnished by us is y V accordance w arith ith the law I 1 second the modifications proposed by you it if equivalent to the language lan guase employed by the act of congress are unnecessary and if not in accordance with said act TU Y ARE AIM 1111 the law is on ova declaring the political disfranchisement of the citizen under certain conditions hardly need deed add that such laws si as a rule urb are viewed critically and construed strictly by the courts i in favor faor of political manhood third the request comes itt at such a late day be registration may ad and so ion long W after ter the prin printed tec forma 0 w the num berof have been birer the territory that the proposed change would occasion much delay and reat unnecessary expense fourth plainly it is not the intent ol 01 the law to lR prescribe any religious creed bathe citizen but to prescribe a rule of action Irrespective of his bis present or f future secret intentions or convictions vict ions loDs or tha change of any of thein the oath we uve formulated in THIC TERMS OP OF THE LAW is but bat auxiliary to the enforcement of the actual observance of the law and erule thet th rule of action prescribed by it hence benc east as t conclusion it is equally plain to us that whosoever takes the oath and transcends the ibe rule it prescribes by a prohibited and punishable crime thereby incurs not only stain of 01 moral liability to legal punishment for the commission of any such prohibited crime and this consequence would as aa logically lexically and necessarily follow the infraction of the form of oath anich we have furnished as the interpolated form which has been proposed fifth the fact that congress has haa prescribed the oath is in itself an assumption a 11 by that body that the oath will I 1 nov not be vain tain but bo be practically BINDING UPON conscience and useful otherwise why the legal requirement of the oath nor Is this construction inconsistent with either the municipal or moral law which respectively ively presumes the honesty and innocence of the Id individual until that presumption is overcome by competent proof sixth since the inter yaw with the Ike committee ommittee at our rooms roams we are advised that a written communication wis was to be presented by the committee abd afterward we received information that it would not be presented we therefore make this reply deairl desiring ng tobe entirely courteous to the committee that further delay might by misconstrued by order of the commission W C HALL secretary |