| Show trux u UTAH urah rah PROBLEM TUK detroit free press aras ot of july ath has the following under the head of the utah problem 11 4 it itis is vory very easy to say that the people pi e of utah are not acting la ila good laith in incorporating in their constitution a prohibition of poly polygamy gatay it is far more than likely indeed that they are not yet it would be establishing a dangerous precedent to refuse the territory admission as a state all the technical requirements being complied with on the ground that the constitution may hereafter be amended or changed so as to permit polygamy such a precedent pie would furnish the excuse for refusal in any case no matter how complete the qualifications for statehood dakota might be reject d on the very same ground tor for no power can compel that territory when once admitted as a state to retain intact the constitution upon which it is admitted its krisht to amend when bouce it becomes a state will be as broad and as unquestioned as that of michigan Mic bigun yet it if utah is refused admission because of a suspicion no matter how bow strong that the constitution is to be amended in any objectionable way the suggestion of a suspicion no matter how weak that dakota intends to do 10 a similar thing will furnish all the ex case necessary for rejecting aist ter ier ri torys application the difficulty is fundamental athas it has its basis in the exercise by the united states of a control over the morals iu the case of the people of the territories which it cannot exercise exer cibo cibe in the caso of the people ot the states there is no power in the united states to demand an anti constitution of it a state michigan has no such constitution ution nor has iny any other state the united states would be powerless to repress or prevent polygamy in michigan or any state if the laws prohibiting it were repealed it would be equally powerless to repress or prevent polygamy in utah it if that territory became a state even though its constitution prohibited polygamy i and as a matter of fact it his has no right to domand demand an anti polygamous constitution of utah as a cotton codR tion precedent to admission the adoption of such a constitution constitution is practically gratuitous on tee ne part art of the people of utah wao who know undoubtedly lust just as well as anybody else that they cannot be comp compiled compelled to do it it is because they know knew this because their anti polygamy provision is a mere sop that we leel so little doubt as to their intention to disregard or abrogate it in the case of utah the difficulty can of course be surmounted by arbitrary refusal to admit against which the territory can do nothing that however as we have already pointed out would establish a the only sure is the adoption of an amend Amen cirt r eat antro entro lb the federal con ution prohibiting polygamy everywhere in the states as well as the territories ri the pree free press pointed this out long since when the amendments lo 10 the edmunds bill were under consideration in congress the remedy is not in accord with our theories of state and national government it devolves upon the latter j jurisdiction jucis diction in a matter which should appertain under our system exclusively to tile the former we doubt very much its being worth while to adopt it even lor for the solution of the mormon problem but it is the only way in which that problem can be et ef solved |
