| Show THE prevailing QUESTION letter of george ticknor curtis to the new york evening post which we copy in f full all today to day squarely meets the most prominent objections to the admission of utah as a state in the union which have been made by journals of reputation and influence in the country one of those these objections is that the promoters of tho the statehood movement are not sincere and another is that unless the mormon church takes ecclesiastical action la ia tie matter and renounces an obnoxious tenet utah cannot be admitted as a state these points mr air curtis meets frankly and fully and turns them aside with arguments that are irrefutable all the presumptions are legally and substantially against the conjecture that the framers odthe of the utah constitution are not sincere the congress oi 01 the united states which is the body to receive or reject that instrument cannot set up the groundless usurp tion that the people of utah who have baye undertaken this work do not bot meau mean what aney bay ay such conjecture is not warranted by auy any facts facto it is not consistent with the theory of law la in reference to presumptions but is in complete opposition to it these people are those who have not violated any law of congress in reference to bigamy and polygamy they bae moreover taken the oath prescribed by congress concerning concern ilig their f future conduct they are the majority of the voting citizens they have formulated in the constitution which fully meet the demands demand that have been made by the press and by the statesmen who have rationally discussed the question and have surrounded those provisions with safeguards that preclude all the objections which could be urged as to their permanence and perpetuity what more could they do will the new york post or some of those eastern editors who take similar ground to that of the post answer ans wei that simple question it must be admitted that the p people who have taken this work in ia hand have done all that any reasonable person could ask but the post and other papers say the mormon church must renounce polygamy what has that to ao with the action of the legal voters of utah territory the constitutional convention had bad no power over the chuich the congress of the united states has no right or power to dictate terms to the church this is not a church question and those editors who ano attempt to make it such simply try to dodge the direct issue they cannot ask more of the citizens who have framed the constitution and st so turn to another and different question and assail the mormon church which Is bot in the present controversy here are the majority of ef the registered voters of utah as citi citizens zenis of the united states asking for their political rights and privileges andrak and making such arrangements as f fully ally meet meat the public I 1 ic demand that has been made as a special condition to statehood that is the situation no one has the right to ask what church they belong to and there is no reason in surmising what any church will or will not do in reference to the matter congress can only in reason on precedent prece dedi in fairness and consistency sis si tency determine whether the constitution ution which has been framed is republican in furm form and meets the special political requirement that i conditions have seemed to demand it cannot impose conditions upon a church nor raise objections as to the belief or disbelief of citizens asking simply for political noli rights and privileges I 1 es under the national constitution eche the post attempting to reply to mr curtis thus evades the tha question his instance of ef a territory f full till ol of roman catholics who should not be admitted to the union unless their church should first by some formal act condemn the practice of privately confessing bessi sins to a priest is strangely outoN out of line xie rather should he suppose a territory f full all of roman reman catholics who affirmed that they had bad a divine law commanding them to kill heretics and who in consequence co nse quence of beliet belief in that law did freely murder protestants the argument of mr curtis p put lu t in the strong words and striking ma manner peculiar to his leg legal gal mind and cultured style was in substance this auricular confession is denounced by protestants as immoral and pernicious if a territory composed chiefly of catholics was denied admission into the union until confessing to priests was abolished there would be thunder in the political sky the post sees the pertinence of the comparison and hastens to hide bide it by substituting something that has no parallel with the main question the argument of mr curtis is not lot out of line mormon polygamy is objected to as immoral so Is ca catholic confession whether viewed as doctrines or practices mr curtis comparison of 0 the two for the purposes of the argument is complete but there is no similarity between polygamy and murder one produces and promotes life the other destroys it one invades no natural or acquired rights the other crushes out both one is not forbidden by natural or divine law the other is condemned by both one is malum in certain sections of human society the other is malum in se universal and everlasting it is the reasoning of the post that to is altogether out of line the argument of the post is disla genious genious ness too in assuming a condition of affairs that does not exist it ignores the fact that the voters of utah who are agitating the me statehood question are law abiding citizens in every sense of the word and reasons on the false basis that they are polygamists who are to be judges of their own of fences and executors ex sou tors of the law against themselves this distortion of the facts is in itself strong witness of the weakness of the cause which the post is vainly attempting to how hold up finally the post meets the provision that the ant anti polygamy section of the constitution shall not be amended without the consent of congress with the tremendous objection we do not believe any such bargain will stand prodigious il what the post may be leive or assume on that point has nothing to do with the rights of the people nor the duty of congress vie the people may plue place restrictions on themselves vea it in their own volition that Co congress agress would have no power to impose is tin the strength of the utah position on that question and there Is no bargain in the transaction the hobt is begging beggi aff the question again it takes at least two parties to make a bargain this is a simple provision made by the people themselves and there is no equivalent offered or required by way ot of a barwa bargain the post elegantly calls it a fetch we do not think the argument if such it may be called will carry mr air curtis curlis has given the post more inore tasu it can hold up under and much more than it can cover with its sophistical shadow |
