| OCR Text |
Show CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. In the Xfirx'ot Saturday night was an I oditorialiu response to the views of Mr. Ljrin Miller, the aged father of Dr. Miller, of .the Omaha JferaUL Mr. Miller, in a letter to some friend in Utaji. expressed the hope that something might be done by the . people of Utah to avoid the storm that -is upendingarid ainong j other thW::, -the '-abandonment of -the! practice of polygamy for a time at least, j The Xnr cannot see the matter in that j light, of coin se, and says .-that the Mor-mons Mor-mons "are by no means disposed as a I body, to, act upon his well-meant siigges- I tion by setting aside or holding in abey- I " ----' - . ,! tut ance even for a time any principle which the Almighty has revealed to them and required them to practice." This devotion devo-tion to principle seems to have had an extraordinary growth of late. Following, the above quotation, the News has this stuff and hypocritical nonsense about obejung constitutional laws : Their religion enjoins upon them obedience obedi-ence to all constitutional laws, but when laws are enacted in direct violation of the Constitution for the express purpose of en-, en-, trapping them, they feel like asking the law makers, as the early Apostles did, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." For the latter part of the sentence we do not care, as it is to the first part we would draw attention. It is absolute cant and hypocrisy for the Xews to talk I about their religion enjoining obedience I to all constitutional laws, unless theJYeu s and the authorities of the Mormon church are allowed to say what laws are constitutional consti-tutional and what are not. It is as much the province of the Supreme Court of the United States to define what is and what is not Mornionism as for the Mormon church to say what laws are constitutional and what are not. A Methodist General Conference might as well undertake to define and promulgate the doctrines of Catholicism as for the Mormon church to define what is and what is not constitutional constitu-tional in the laws of Congress; or the College of Cardinals might as well undertake under-take to say what doctrines and creeds constitute Methodism. The Mormon church claims that the Constitution is an inspired instrument. If such it be, then it was inspired before the Mormon church was, and as in the latter insniration nothing was said about the Constitution, either in the way of amendment or repeal, the Constitution must stand as inspired, and so the Supreme Court of the United States must still stand as the only means of determining what laws are and what are not in harmony with it. There is no escape from this conclusion, and people who rely upon the Lord to tell them what are and what are not constitutional laws, must still have recourse to the only means that the Lord inspired for de termining such questions. If the people of Utah were in conflict with the Government Govern-ment over some other law, no doubt but that they would protest their love for the Constitution, and cant about how their religion re-ligion taught them to render obedience to all constitutional laws the same as they do now. As the Lord has not put the Presidency, nor either branch of Congress, nor the Supreme Su-preme Court in the hands of the Mormon church, it is very plain that the Lord has not given to that church the power to enact laws in accordance with the Constitution, Consti-tution, nor to say what laws of Congress are valid and in accord with that instrument instru-ment and what ones are invalid and not in accord. Such being the case, it would be better for the Mormon people to obey the laws of the Government until such time as the Lord sees fit to place the Government into their hands. When He does that, we shall urge obedience as strongly to all laws which the Mormon church may enact as we now urge obedience to the laws already enacted by the Gove-mment. -. i |
