| Show THE LATEST TEST OATH A lively spat in court THE TELE SUIT DISPOSED OF BY in the third district court yesterday afternoon it was found necessary to call on the open venire to fill aw axel of the jury in the suit of elias morris vs the mammoth mining com company 7 one of those thus summoned 11 was as joshua midgley Mid giey the painter he passed satisfactorily as to ris general qualifications and was called by judge Hen enderson denson iwho who was wason on the bench benc bencito nto to take the oath prescribed by the ed munds tucker law the clerk handed banded to the judge his book containing the forms of oath judge henderson inquired Is this the form judge zane has adopted clerk mcmillan laa replied that that form had been APPROVED BY BT JUDGE ama thou though it had not a as yop b beau on odeail late in court aho the eark th aar apr leviod to fim tk 1 how 1 UM temi i 1 fit ati I 1 being duly sworn depose and sar may that I am over 21 years of age that I 1 have resided in the territory of utah for six mouths 1 last past and nd that I 1 am a native born or d citizen of the united states that my tall fall name la Is that I 1 am years of age that I 1 am a man that the same of my lawful wife to is and that I 1 will support the constitution ot of the united states and will faithfully obey the laws thereof that I 1 will obey the acts of congress prohibition hibi tion polygamy bigamy unlawful cohabitation incest adultery and for ai ni cation that I 1 will not hereafter here afier in any territory of the united states at any time in obedience to any alleged revelation or to any counsel advice or command from any source whatever or under any circumstances cum stances ener into plural or polygamous marriage or have or take more wives than one or cohabit with more than one woman contrary to said laws that I 1 will not at any time hereafter directly or indirectly aid or abet counsel or advise any person to have or take more wives than one or to cohabit with more than one waman or to commit incest adultery or fornication copt contrary to said laws that I 1 am not a bid bigamist or polygamist that I 1 do not cohabit with mith persons of the other ather sex and that I 1 have not been convicted of any of the offenses above mentioned mr declined to take it and the court was about to excuse h him lm when arthur brown brawn op oa behalf of the plaintiff objected as the oath was not with that prescribed by law nor the one the court bad been using judge Hender henderson sor remarked that it judge zane had bad adopted it he would not question it i mr brown suggested that judge zane COULD NOT MAKE THE LAWS any more moire thin than any one else if a form of oath had been adopted it wils was when only one side had been urged and that by mr dickson the members of the bar had had no opportunity of giving their opinions P L williams also of counsel for the plaintiff stated that the law itself provided what the oath should be and te provided e did not think taink that the law should be departed from if there was a copy co of ty the law at hand he be would liko to aye the two compared he thought it would be loqui that there was a MATERIAL difference between the oath in the new book and the old form mr midgley stated that he would not take either form of oath until he be had bad further farther considered the amr matterand tt erand was excused wm C spence was next called and stated that he could take tharold ld lorm form of at oath but not the new when asked to point out the difference he said he could not do so without exa examining both bogli P F L williams then st stated th that at he be could point out the difference ahe abe new oath was one which no mormon could take and one which he objected to because it trenched ON THE DOMAIN OP OF conscience and interfered with the conscientious convictions of persons who way have a belief in revelation and prophets such demons r sons could not take such suca an oath to iro take it was to te subject a 0 mana man mind to an indignity and mate make him swear in advance that he will disregard something soui ething that may come to him as a revelation that he be devoutly believes congress could make no religious tests and this court would not be jus us tilled fined in making a religious test 0 of this act they were not justified in departing flom the language of congress when they interpolate as was done in this new oath the expressions will not at any n y time under any circumstances stances in ib obedience to any revelation etc As he understood it the juror did not object to U the naming of the crimes in any that might be chosen but to the interpolation of a clause not intended by congress mr williams pointed pointe dout out the alfter difference between the two forms to a nicety his speech would make interesting reading when compared with the advice to registrars signed by mr williams CW bennett of ca counsel ansel for the mammoth mining company Como any made a speech in ia favor of using the new oath which he be said had bad been framed oy by THE POLITICAL authorities to meet he thought it must be conceded that the act intended to keep out jurors who could not subscribe to the oath the second oath did not differ from the first except that it was more explanatory it did not differ in its legal effect the new oath simply brings a man face to face with his bis own ciu conscience science the subterfuge under which the other oath was takes taken that it Js Is not my present intention to disobey the law 11 possibly not a device of the the devil it was a miserable evion evasion by the new oath oata he said it was ws intended to make the jury do what congress intended they should swear not to commit it polygamy or unlawful cohabitation at any time the law was made to top stop the beastly union between one man and mer mare than one woman and that must be stopped the body which here controlled the great majority of the voters had lately printed advice to all 11 their followers that all men might take the oath who had no present in violate it taking auch inchan an oath was wa moral perjury arry pr ry is 11 not local legal perjury it if they ar are 6 good honest hones t church members tit they ey CANNOT TANN THIS NEW OATH it holds up before them the real responsibility they incur in taking the oath he would be the last one to ask to have the law strained he be simply wanted the spirit and intention tin of the lawmakers law makers carried out any juror might believe what he be ghose regarding revelation and prophets this oath does not touch upon that belief at all he I 1 may show himself an ass by believing such things but anat matter this barr harr angue was continued for some time in the same strain and the attorney finally anally sat down arthur brown I 1 of counsel for the plaintiff replied as follows tol lowa may mav it please your honor I 1 would like to inquire if it be possible ossia e to and n out who h are the h e apo political authorities te of t this Is territory r ri r that have interpreted ter prete i this oath that at my brother has referred to wh when e u he says here the political antoo authorities r aties have determined ter mined it who are arc they what does he mean by the political authorities does he be mean himself or a committee of some SECRET organization or the governor if he means the Gov governor erBor the executive authority where lias las the executive ever acted upon it if he be means the judiciary lucH clary where is the decision upon which they have acted it he be means the commission of this territory t why he cite it it is manifest it ft is within the knowledge of my brother that this torm lorm of oath has not been prescribed by the commission it is right the other r way wa y and my brother says we are to take note of the circumstances that are surround surrounding lK us and of the facts as they are and bence he be has gone outside of the question here to lo discuss the politico politic situation here at this time and on this occasion now who is it I 1 want to know who it is that he means when he says the political authorities have determined what this oath shall be who are they who have THIS GREAT AUTHORITY I 1 this great power to determine we think your honor is here to determine something but not to make any law to determine what the law now I 1 is BIB in this territory and counrel counsel is right right when be say a we are to take tak notice of the suri surrounding bunding circumstances I 1 agree with him this law jew is to be interpreted in view of the situation here in utah plainly put and plainly considered and what is it your honor knows full well that when this law was proposed to be passed by congress it was attempted and desired by my brother has just made this argument and by others that think as he be does that an oath should by bu formulated that so no mormon could take and that it was asked of congress that the act be directed ag against ginst the mormons cormons Mor mons prescribing scribing I 1 that ahat no member of that chur eh should ho take it and prescribing in certain religious tests certain things AGAINST THEIR RELIGION certain points that they take the oath it is within the cipe discussion assion and the debates in Congress it is within the facts that the committee ex pressly put aside an oath of that form so that any mormon could take this and nat as my brother says for the purpose of excluding them but that they might take iland that tuey passed the tae law changing the form of of oath which had bad been laid before the committee and which was desired to be passed and an oath was laid down there which was singularly tree from any hint at that belief this oath that thai has been read here which this act of congress prescribes prescribes no ne word in is iii derogatory to any religion particularly to that which was prevalent in this territory particularly to the mormon church it is evidently designed on purpose that any mormon might take it il all the act of congress prescribed was that the mormon and gentile mike alike should swear fo obey the law but my brother and the few uneasy spirit himself are NOT WITH THE ACT of cot congress but they want to bring into it an express slur upon the religion ion of the mormons cormons Mor mons and they add in obedience to any revelation why that particular clause put in my brother has explained it he has ex laened it because he says these kalnen armons believe in a revelation and we want to make a fling fil ng at them he dont use it in those words but he be says we want to shut off the mormons cormons Mor mons precisely congress want to make any suck such claim but he did he wanted to make the slur and so he be has drawn up this oath oarb and added those these words for the purpose of making it disagreeable agreeable clis to any Mormon to take it not noll that in real fact there is any grave distinction but they wanted to insult the mormons cormons so that they want to take the oath 0 a ah that ilvie is ane object of that oath chak is if the distinction in obedience to any re why they put in any other particular fact which might induce some person to violate the oath which he has taken there is an oath here against committing adultery it Is understood frequently under that the mormons cormons are barly free from committing that offense and that there are some gen tiles a lew that occasionally I 1 COMMIT THAT it if the particular seductive reasons which would apply to mormons cormons are to be put in ia why not put in some particular seductive reason will apply to gentiles Ge otiles suppose th the a oath had been worded and I 1 promise that I 1 will not hereafter ever in this world under uder any of ef provocation tion or of seduction the erime crime of fornication not even it the handsomest woman in the le world should get in bed with roe me and that should be added to the oath what would my brother say to it he say that that is sm an unnecessary necessary fling at a man it might be that most men would fall under such circumstances it mient be that IL a man loan might be seared scared out of taking tae e oath well if I 1 WM actually forced into it I 1 might possibly commit fornication that to is not the object of the law the law simply cimpl y asks a man to promise to obey it these particular points point of seduction the reasons or occasions where he might violate it are not to be treated upon or spoken of ef here is a juror that sa says a 8 1 ai I am willing to take the eat oath that I 1 will not commit any of the offenses polygamy bigamy adultery and so on reciting the names of all the offenses offen sei why it enough it enough because I 1 my brother thinks he be is a mormon and because he be thinks it if he can bring in or wring in the FLING ABOUT revelation it might prevent his taking the oath not that there to is any very great difference except that clause in obedience to guy any pretended pie tended revelation there is this further distinction As I 1 un understand der stand the second oath it is unlimited as to whether the law to is r repealed a or not the first oath the oath prescribed by congress is limited to the existence of the law of courbet courset course as soon as the law should be repealed rege repealed e aled the oath is ia no longer binding up upon anyone 0 in any sense now may it please your honor to look at tais thing in a plain way as it seems tome to me ws we would wool look at any other act of the legislature aside fr from 0 m the feeling which this political decu discussion s seems to evoke that is is if it had been wt aa oata oath for a taxpayer he aou would ad understand that it was formulated if what a taxpayer must swear to to have his tax regulated had been prescribed in this language we would say it was formulated it is not formulated in the first firs t person simply formulated in the third person that is all it lacks of being formulated just what a mau man must swear to is prescribed every item of it is written out in t this his law every male person 21 years of age a resident of the territory errit ory of utah shall as 1 a condition precedent to his right to register or vote at any election in said territory take and SUBSCRIBE BE AN OATH or affirmation before the registration officer of his bis voting precinct that he IP IF over 21 years of age and has resided in the territory for six mouths months last past aud and noon BO on each item that he be has to swear to is there specified who can add to that oath can the jud judiciary clary oan can the judiciary say we wi will 11 prescribe something else that t the e ait it nation here is such that we want to wash out th these ese mormons cormons from the jury and therefore we will put something in that they cannot take I 1 that would not only be IN to legislate but it would be to legislate in the teeth of contrary legislation by congress it would be to appeal from congress i and override their express ae legis lation on the subject I 1 take tak e it the courts cannot do lt it the courts cannot make law they have no greater rights than the commonest individual and this oath your honor I 1 dont believe has been aen made by the court it his has been made by a secret organization and they propose to ram it sown down the throat of the court whether the court will take it or not and ram it by terrorism down the month meuth of every juryman that may come into this court room it seems to me may it it please your honor it is TO THU LAW to ask the juror to take it there ther is another reason reacon in this case here are ten jurors who have been ac accepted and sit here that have not taken it now why not they have taken the oath that has bus been read to your honor mr darling one of the regular panel your four honorias honor has read this particular oath and the others have taken it is it proposed tb ask this juror to take a new and different one we object to it the juror says 11 1 have examined the oath that has been |
