Show THE DEMAND UPON THE CHURCH boston traveller of july ath in an editorial udit orial on utah and statehood admits the ordinary qualifications of the Territory its population resources ac acas as justifying the present movement also the fact that the constitution prohibitions of bigamy and polygamy are made as strong as possible but it fears that this action is engineered from the outside with some political object in view and that it is a democratic project the traveller like other papers that touch on this subject indulges in a great deal of conjecture and makes up in doubts and queries and aad suspicions what it fails to supply in argument the present question is one of fact and policy and ana surmises that may be wholly imaginary and anticipations that may never be realized ar are e very poor objections to be urged rg d on a matter of so much importance even it if the wholly gratuitous supposition of outside democratic engineering or support were substantial 1 1 tant ial we do not see why that should hould be an obstacle clu in the path of utah to the position she is destined to occupy and which it is admitted she is qua qualified gifted for except in one particular jarand and that it is now proposed to nettle it democrats outside of utah should take an interest in seeing demo democratic catic government established here we see no reason why that should be a barrier la in tae way to statehood Is not republican interest outside of dakota la in the project for the ad admission mission of that territory into the union it seems so from the travellers Trav ellers own remarks if then outside republicans may properly pro teng ineer the movement for statehood in dakota why should it be an unpardonable political sin tor for democrats to be interested iuie restel in a similar movement in icah or is what is eminently right in republicans the very essence of wrong in democrats but the traveller voices the senti mem meat expressed in different ways by a large number of hasty journals on what is thought to be tue grand objection to the statehood movement in this way utah should not bs be admitted t to 0 the union until the mormon church in its capacio capa cit as ad such formally renounces tin the doctrine of polygamy there is the real motive power bekind behind the opposition to the statehood measure it is war upon a church it 1 an endeavor to array the government of 0 the united states against an of religion the swe state to regulate the tae doctrine of a church Ato A complete molete revolution of republican institutions A radical departure from established principle A direct violation of constitutional guaranties guarantees guaran ties A requirement that cannot be justified by law jaw or precedent by sound policy or political exigency the right of the people of utah to put into their constitution a provision that restricts the amending power has been gravely questioned by leading journals joura aly and yet they make a similar demand to this of the travellers Trav ellers it there is a constitutional objection to on ou eState coming into the federal union on different terms to those exacted of other states how much more of a constitutional objection is there to requiring special terms of a state tat relate ti to a doctrine of a particular church within that state cannot the papers that are making tills this demard demaid see that congress which no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit idie free exercise thereof has ii no at authority hority and no right to require a ch church arch to relinquish a doctrine or ar tic alcie e of faith or any matter of belliel beliel la 18 it not clearts clear to every person who has looked into the matter without the colored toi ored spectacles ot of prejudice that k Abe the mormon church must not be iwo von founded with the state of utah congress in deciding whether the of utah shall be accepted or cannot anto consideration the belief or disbelief of ef any portion of the citizens of territory it has been proclaimed the 0 country that in tb fbi extreme and ecial ial legislation adopted by the GOY gov ment against certain classes in ton h religion belief doctrine were at in view and that actions only were be I 1 restrained and has not e supreme court of the united a laid down the principle that vern ments have no power over mat bot of belief and that they can only ferfera ere when when religious faith breaks t into overt acts against peace and kl order N be unhesitatingly lay down the pro ahon on as irrefutable that neither Tong congress Fess nor the people of the states can properly make any d 1 ot of the mormon church its ts capacity as such to words of tre boston traveller f nature whatever if individual atis a of that church violate the can be punished by the law members cannot be judged lud gedor or ald responsible tor for their acts the vouch hasa as a church cannot belegris be leals gw nor la ia favor of n nor 0 b be cognized officially in any action uen taken by y congress gress in relation aaion to the political rig eghte hu or privileges of the citizens of utah further the mormon church has 48 y much sat ra t to Q holi hold plural marriage abt 9 beaw sacred and desirable ln in catholic church 11 haa to aw te uphold celibacy in that light there is nothing in the constitution or laws or decisions of the courts of the united states against that right no action of congress or any brauch of the gov or all combined can be legitimately taken against it the church can hold it as a doctrine and its members nem bers may believe it and there is no secular power that can prevent or restrain it or punish anyone tor for entertaining it but bat if a law is enacted against the practice and any anfin individual member breaks the law he and he be alone can be made responsible for his act congress has just as much right to pass a law against 1 celibacy as against polygamy and an equal right to punish infractions of the law in either case but it has no right to require the mormon church to give up the doctrine of plurality nor the catholic church to renounce the doctrine of celibacy this demand then which is copied by so many editors w without thinking of its folly is a piece of assumption and impertinence for which there is no justification the monogamous citizens of utah the tae registered voters are eny engaged aged in a political measure and they must be met in that capacity I 1 their heir religion or their connection with any religious body has nothing to do with the case and of all men I 1 in n the world american editors ought to know and appreciate this 81 simple I 1 pie fact it if those utah citizens were polygamists in practice the matter might have a totally different bearing but bad they are not ind and they have taken action on the question of practical polygamy forbidding it and providing provi aing penalties against it tills this is all congress can consider in connection with the matter and themo the mormon limon church is just wi ai a i exempt from roca congressional action as any ol 01 the other churches which exist within the boundaries of the proposed state of utah the sooner our con temporaries perceive this thid simple truth which is ia beyond successful controversy the better bettel it will be for their reputation tor for consistency and regard for republican principles and institutions |