| association, property contributed for Meanwhile, we suppose present in the nature of a contract, and to conditions will remain undisturbed. take from a religious corporation or And, in any event, before the real estate is taken, proceedings will have to be entered and the claims of the Church in regard to each piece of property heard and determined. We are pleased to see the equanimity of spirit and the firm reliance upon the workings of Providence manifested by the Latter-day Saints in regard to this attempted spoliation. PUBLIC POLICY AND NATIONAL PILLAGE. ples abide. Its spirit is still active. Its living force is not abated. If Congress can annul a legislative act which is in the nature of a contract, without violence to the na A great deal of ignorant abuse tional Constitution, let that go is hurled at Chief Justice Fuller as good law. If the Supreme and also at Justices Field and Court for purposes of so-called "pubLamar, because they dissent from lic policy," sustains that conthe opinion of the majority. They gressional proceeding in face of the are represented as "shielding polyg- Constitution, let that also go, as a amy" and supporting the "tin judicial decision that will answer relic," and many other stupid accu- the purpose of law. But it does not sations are made against them. The follow that this will make sound, truth is, they simply defended legal, constitutional or right, the plain constitutional principles and taking of property that belongs to restrictions. And in doing so they the body of people forming the COMMENTS on the decision of the did not hesitate because the people Church so disincorporated, and es Supreme Court of the United States and institution which the legislation cheating it to the Government. in the "Mormon” Church property under review sought to despoil, That is, in plain language, national case appear in most of the American were unpopular and charged with robbery. newspapers. As a rule they are countenancing crime. copies, some of them verbatim reproductions without credit, from a few of the leading journals which are strongly anti-"Mormon." They display that ignorance of the real question, underlying the litigation, which is so prevalent in this country. It seems useless to reason with persons who are blinded with prejudice and indifferent to facts. But the press of this country ought to pause before endorsing a movement to confiscate corporate property and divert it from its original uses, because it is alleged that it may be used by the disincorporated society to promote something forbidden by the law. The excuse offered for it will not stand the light of reason, justice or sound policy. Even if it were true that the property thus taken by force from a religious body, might be used to promote an unlawful practice, that is a very poor pretext for giving this great Government power to seize something that does not be long to it, for fear the property might be devoted to improper uses. And if this precedent is established, what will be the end of its applica tion? There are some influential papes that have looked into this matter and have gone beyond the surface, paying little attention to the false "polygamy" pretense with which it has been varnished. We append below some of their utterances. The New York Sun of May 21st gives a succinct statement of the case, and says in conclusion: There 18 scarcely an editor in the land who understands the "Mormon" situation or who has studied the laws of Congress relating to Utah There is not any evidence that if and its people. Nearly all of them the "Mormon” Church were to respeak of this decision as affirming tain possession of the pieces of real the constitutionality of the Ed- property which the decision of the munds Act, which was passed Supreme Court affects, or the perin 1882, and jump to the sonal property which the Utah conclusion that it gives the "death courts declared forfeit but which blow to polygamy” and disorganizes the law does not mention, they the "Mormon” Church. would be used in any way to proMany of thes comments are mote or perpetuate any practice that ludicrous to one who is acquainted is contrary to law. And if there with the facts and understands the were, it is a grave question whether natural and legal effects of the law this probability would be a suffi- "To us it seems that that this result and the decision. The law which cient justification for the new de can only be deemed satisfactory by those who believe in the doctrine that has been passed upon is that com-parture in American jurisprudence, the end justifies the means, however monly known as the Edmunds which escheats to the United States, objectionable the latter. It is most desirable that it should cease, but it Tucker act of 1887, and should not property on which the Government should not be brought about by disbe confounded with the Edraunds has not the slightest claim, iu equity regarding the plain commands of the act of 1882. The power of Congress or on any just principle or recog-judges of the Supreme Court of the constitution; and here we have three to legislate against polygamy in the nized precedent. United States, including the Chiet Territories was not the issue in- And we will state here, without Justice, declaring that certain essenvolved in the case. That has been the slightest hesitation, that the tial provisions of the Edmunds act are in contravention of specific limitations decided for a long time. It is stripping of the "Mormon" Church in the fundamental law of the land strange that the editors of the of every dollar's worth of its property, United States are not familiar with real and personal, would not affect this fact, and lamentable that they the polygamy question one iota. If should be so ignorant of the im- the "Mormon" people were still portant national questions that are preaching, practising and perpetuaffeeted in this instance. ating polygamy, the amount of the The power of Congress to pass worldly possessions of the Church laws for the suppression of polyg- or the entire lack of them, would amy was not questioned by coun- not affect the matter in any way sel appearing in this case on whatever. The disincorporation of behalf of the "Mormon" Church. the Church, as we have heretofore The real issue was the power of shown, does not disorganize the Congress to repeal an act of the Church. It remains intact. It is Territorial Legislature which was not weakened thereby. Its princi "No detailed discussion of the de cision is possible without the text of the opinions. From the public abstracts, however, which are very meagre, we gather that the majority of the court justifies the confiscation proceedings on the ground that the property taken was used to sustain the practice of polygamy in defiance of the national laws. The dissenting judges concede the power of Congress to suppress polygamy and punish it as a crime; but they deny that this can be done in the manner provided for by the Edmunds act, which subthe Mormon stantially adjudged Church guilty, without giving it a judicial hearing, and then proceeded to appropriate its property to govern ment uses. "The case is one of the most important ever decided by the Supreme Court." The New York Telegram of the 22nd remarks: "No one wishes to defend the Mormon Church. In cutting away this excrescence, though, it is well not to injure the sound organism of the patient, and thus lead to the breaking down of healthy fibre. "If the general government may confiscate the property of the Mormon Church for crine, where will the line be drawn? That alleged Church as a corporation should not be allowed to exist when it advocates polygamy and defies the government, but the principle that Congress may order the confiscation of the property of a corporation is a dangerous one to admit. The next confiscation of corporation property which the general government may order might come nearer to invading the rights of many who now approve of the Edmunds law. "In the end perhaps it will be seen that the view held by Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Field and Lamar, that Congress has no such power under the Constitution will be sounder, as it is undeniably the safer interpretation of the Constitution." of worship, and to hold church prop-cation. But when such a local act of erty in excess of the $50,000 limit pre-incorporation is not only nullified but scribed by the Edmunds bill. It is the property held under it is escheated not beyond the bounds of possibility as a penalty for violation of the law by that a day may come when this deci- the corporation, a vast field of specusion by a majority of the Supreme lative law is opened, the further marCourt judges will prove to be the gins of which are not distinguishable worst sort of precedent that could have from any present standpoint. In this been established. It is by no means case the corporation, a church, was certain that the several religious de accused of tenets and teachings and nominations of this country will al- practices contrary to law, and for this ways remain so equally divided as at its property is confiscated. In jurispresent. It may not be probable, but prudence a germ often expands unexit certainly is not impossible that pectedly and is found to have held some day there may be a religious sect principles and possibilities entirely so strong in this country that its very unsuspected. This is true of the strength may prove a temptation to fourteenth amendment, which was attemet the repression of other sects. believed at the time of its adoption to Such things have been, and may be apply only to natural persons, in again. When that day comes, what respect of their legal rights of person, protection will there be for religious property and action. This gerin has exliberty save in the Constitution of the panded until it includes artificial perUnited States, and what will that Con- sons and has become a most important stitution b worth as a protection in contribution to corporation law. Heresuch a case if it may be twisted for the after there will be at least color of purpose of crushing out a sect which authority for escheat of the property happens to be odious to a majority of of any corporation that is found to the people, as Mormonism confessedly have disobeyed the law. Congress has is, and deserves to be? The trouble taken jurisdiction of all inter-state with the present case is that it is not transportation lines, and by statute polygamy alone that the anti-polyg- regulates their operation. The intiamists are waging war against. It is cate emergencies of the railroad busithe complete crushing out of the Mor-ness are so impossible of accommodamon Church that they chiefly desire, tion to a rigid statute that these roads and it is to that work that the Repub- are compelled to constant technical The Alexandria, Va., Gazette has lican justices of the Supreme Court violation of the law. Why shall not this editorial: escheat of their property be the penalty? Again, if a church in the wilderness shall be escheated for preaching or practice contrary to the law of the land, why shall one within the pale escape? Several of our strongest churches openly defy the civil law, and for obedience to it visit spiritual penalties upon their members. Can anyone tell why the Mormon Church estate shall be confiscated and the property of other churches go free? An anti-polygamy law is CO more sacred than a compulCourt judges have decided that the sory school law, a high liquor United States have not only the right license law, and others which are to suppress polygamy, but also have openly denounced and are openly disthe right to seize the funds and prop- obeyed by several churches. If the erty of the Mormon Church. The fourteenth amendment could be exDemocratic justices, Fuller and La-panded to embrace artificial persons, mar, agree that Congress has the right the principles of this decision, which to suppress polygamy, but it has not now smites Hagar in the desert, may the right to seize and confiscate the also reach Abraham in his tent. property of corporations because they distance it would seem that the purhave been guilty of crimes. The suit of the Mormon Church to punish Republican Supreme Court is begin- it is a repetition of the familiar story ning to be nothing more than a judi- of religion using the arm of state to cial body to carry into effect the be-strike a spiritual rival. It is time that hests of a Republican Congress." have given their assent. But they The Meridian, Miss., Daily News "While some of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court yesterday in the Virginia coupon cases, and in the meat inspection case in Minnesota, are only just what were expected, that in the Mormon Church case is surprising. The Legislature of Utah granted a charter to the Mormon "In the suit of the Mormon Church Church under which that Church dur- against the United States, the vital ing a long period acquired nearly a doctrines of Republicanism and Demillion dollars worth of property. mocracy are again brought to the Congress not only repealed that front. The Republican Supreme charter but escheated all the property of the Church to the United States, thus not only passing an ex-post facto law, and one impairing the obligations of a contract, but taking possession of private property without just compensation, and though all three of these acts are specially prohibited by the Constitution, the Uuited States Supreme Court yesterday gave them its sanction. The law is plain enough, but the interpretation thereof passes human understanding." The Manchester, N. H. Union has this clar conception of the vital question involved: "Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Field and Lamar make a clear dispolygamy. The other members of the Supreme Court fail to make this distinction, and consequently the Edmunds anti-polygamy law, with its remarkable provision for the confiscation of church property is sustained. Now will the partisan journals, which are praising the Republican members of the court, state frankly what would be their position if at some future day, one pretext or another, there tinction between Mormonism and The New York Times, a strong anti-"Mormon" journal, gives editorially a plain and well digested statement of the case, and the position taken by the minority as well as the majority of the judges, and leaves the momentous questions at issue without comment. The Alta California strikes at the root of the evil concealed in this decision and lays it open in the following treuchaut style: At a believers in a secular state should legislation and jurisprudence which seriously consider the precedents in are being established in the course of this contest. Idaho disfranchises for membership in the Mormon Church, and it is proposed to extend the same disability to Utah, the reason and pretext being that the teachings of the Mormon Church are inimical to good government. The editor of the New York Mail and Express says that the inimical to good government. The teachings of the Democratic party are President of the United States says that he will veto any bill passed in Congress by the aid of Democratic should be a movement to confiscate votes. Senator John J. Ingalls has the property of some other denomina- "The decision of the federal Su- often expressed himself to the effect tion in a section of country which preme Court escheating all the prop- that the Democratic party pernicious happened to be under federal rather erty of the Mormon Churc to the and unfit for existence. Now, if these than State control? Mormonism is United States, is more than novel. It opinions prevail in any State sufbad, undoubtedly, bad all through in is startling. No one questions the ficiently, why not follow the Idaho the opinion of everybody except the power of Congress to nullify the Ter- precedent and disfranchise all DemoMormons themselves, but what has ritori 1 act by which the Mormon crats because the majority thinks their that fact to do with the legal aspects church became a civil corporation. doctrines wrong? Scores of hypoof the case? The Mormons have no Such nullification was no doubt com-thetical cases can be suggested which more right to commit polygamy than petent and constitutional. It need not show how perilously near the edge we Methodists or Baptists or Catholics be in the nature of a penalty for vio- are treading in the principles which have, but it is not easy to see why they ion of the anti-polygamy or any are being applied to the suppression have not the same constitutional right other law. As an act of public poliey of the Mormon Church. By and by to their faith, to their particular forms alone it would not be without justifi- the question will be asked, 'Why was on this necessary? Why not punish for polygamy the individuals who commit it, as we do those who commit murder, without disfranchising those who belong to the murderer's church or confiscating its property?' And who can answer it consistently with the policy which works denial of their civil rights to men as a penalty for their religious belief?" overn There is a good deal more in this decision than now appears. When the judicial branch of the ment joins in measures of expediency that are encroachments upon the guarantees which should be equal to all religions, associations and individuals, and does this for the purpose of suppressing an unpopular ecclesiastical body, patriots devoted to the national welfare, who can see the probable effects of such expedients upon other organizations and individuals, may well be moved The New York Herald said the counterpart is the result. The following on the same subject: Mercury presented a copy as a souvenir to each of its subscribers. The little 1720 sheet furnishes the public of that time with the mortuary report of the city of London for the ten days from April 19th to "See where this decision leaves New York. A liquor dealer of this city has only to send a truck to Jersey City for a supply of whisky in masks, or to Hoboken for a load of beer in bottles. He is free to sell this in the metropolis without an excise license and without has no power to stop him, nor the exthe payment of any tax. The State cise commissioners any authority to interfere with him. It may be that the State may prevent a regular saloon traffic in such a case by prohibiting the drinking of such liquors on the premises where sold. But even that would require legislation at Albany. This is an amazing turn of affairs, not only for New York, but every State in the Union. It enables liquor dealers to evade and defy local prohibition, tax, or license laws. It paralyzes the power of the State to deal with the quor traffic. The only remedy is Congressional action. The Supreme Court concedes that Congress may come to the relief of States. A bill for that purpose has already been introto serious alarm. It is the "Mor-duced in the House by Mr. Boutelle, mon" Church which is to be despoiled today. What Church will be the object of popular wrath and governmental pillage tomorrow? of Maine. Unless Congress acts, any The New York Observer thus "If the principle of the decision is maintained, then any State may be IT KILLS POLICE REGULATIONS. THEN AND NOW. By courtesy of Mr. Richard Hol dents being 515. Some of the causes April 29th, the total number of dece of death are stated in language that would not in our day be considered polite. Here is a sample bit of informa tion which is indicative of the times in which it was given: From the General Postoffice letter, in Lombard Street, April 26: They write from Paris that 300 arch. ers being appointed to take up all beggars and vagabonds, and to send those who are not able to work to the hospitals, and those who are to Mississippi (of which latter 300 were sent away the 27th) had laid hands on divers trading people of credit, and killed three that resisted; upon which the people rose upon them, killed eleven of the archers, and wounded many like insurrection, when several more more. The next day there was the of the archers were killed. The parliament have assembled on this occasion, and made a representation there of to the government. The following shows how matters were dismissed with a few lines in those days that would burden several columns in our times: one Yesterday eight men and woman received sentence of death at the old Baily. Among them John Keine, for murdering his wife, George Davis, for robbing the Sword Blade Company, and Elizabeth Cranbury, for poisoning her father-in-law with arsenic. Robert Coles was convicted of felony, for embezzling his master the Lord Cobham's jewels, to the value of £1600 or £1700 delivered to him to carry to the Lady Cobham's father, till their return out of the country. The evidence against him was very full, and not in the least contradicted, only himself said he did carry the jewels according to the directions. About thirty-three were ordered for transportation. William Pit. Esq., is chosen Memthe room of Mr. Doddington, deber of Parliament for Bridgwater, in ceased. Last week the Oxford stage coach was robbed between Uxbridge and London, by the same highway men, as is supposed, who robbed the Bristol mail, one of them having a scar on his forehead, as was likewise a gentleman on Finchley Common, by a highwayman, who took from him forty-four guineas, then cut his horse's girths, and rode off with his booty. The lat ter of these robberies was committed in sight of four wagons. the Northampton (England) alarming danger in the decision. He contends that it practically robs the Mercury, we are enabled to examine States of all the police power and con- a fac simile of its first issue, dated trol over the liquor traffic. It removes May 2nd, 1720. It is a diminutive even the scant barriers of a license. He claims that under the decision a affair of twelve pages, seven and person in New York City who wants one-half inches long, by six inches to avoid the payment of license can get his liquor from New Jersey in the wide, the first being entirely occupackages desired and then sell them pied by the title and imprint. A here with perfe t freedom as a privi- comparison between it and the leged commodity under the federal interstate law, which supersedes any present form of the Mercury, which and all laws of the State on that sub- is an ably conducted eight page ject. "True," he says, "there can be (24x27 inch) paper, enables a person but one sale in the original package, but that may practically answer all to form an adequate idea of the the purposes of a saloon.' Here is a progress of journalism, during the pretty to do.' The Court, standing as the interpreter and bulwark of Fede- period named. The fac simile was ob-head Thicket, and charged with robral law, cannot permit a State to im-tained by means of photography and pose restrictions on a traffic which is zinc plates. Care was taken to have If it does it nullifies an act of it upon paper similar to the kind used in 1720; consequently an exact not excluded from interstate commerce. Congress." Some days ago a woman beat another, who was her lodger, so unmercifully on the breast that she which piece of barbarity she is commurdered her upon the spot, for mitted to the Gate-house. A man lately taken up near Maidenbing the Cirencester stage coach, has been examined by a justice of the peace, who has committed him to Reading Goal. He is said to be a butcher's son of Thame, in Oxfordshire. PROCEED WITH CAUTION. THE application to the City Council by a company for the control of If the Church were really the "contumacious organization" spoken law because they are in accord with States have not earned it and therewidespread prejudice. fore have no right to it. It was their right to dissolve the Mormon corporation, and it was their duty in doing so to return its property to its Leirsplace, the stockholders of the corporhandled with great care. The com ployed these resources" in the di-ation or members of the Church. mittee to whom it was referred rection alleged, it is likely that This is the command of the English ought to take time to consider it "these resources" would not have never been so disregarded in the common law, which until now has thoroughly. It is very doubtful if been on hand as an object of escheat United States. But under this decisthe City Council can legally com- and a prey for plunder. And it is on the stockholders of a corporation ply with the request. have no property rights in its holding. not unreasonable to believe, that if The government may dissolve the flowing into the City are not the they had been used in ways that corporation and confiscate its property property of the Council. They are might have been suggested, the is most conven ent. If this is law and as an escheat' on whatever pretext under municipal control, but we do legislation which seeks to give the the Constitution, why not 'escheat' not believe the municipal authorGovernment power to seize somethe property of the trusts as more ities may surrender that control to thing that does not and cannot be- than any corporation that confines its dangerous to the "public welfare" any private individual or corpora-long to it, would possibly have never operations to the desert and the Salt Lake regions?" been fully hatched into life. the waters of the city should be of by the court, and if it had 'em-those who contributed it in the first tion. The waters As we at present view the matWe take pleasure in reproducing ter, on general principles, it would some additional comments, from be bad policy, apart from the ques-influential papers, on the decision tion of lawful power, to convey to of the Supreme Court touching this any person or company these im- matter. The annexed is from the portant interests. The right to the St. Louis Republic of May 21st: use of the streams running into this city is vested in the inhabitants and should be retained by them under municipal nanagement. If the present incumbents of city "The Supreme Court, Judge Bradley delivering the opinion, Justices Fuller and Lamar dissenting, sustains Senator Edmunds in his view that the State may take by 'escheat' the property of a dissolved corporation. This doctrine was opposed and in THE REPUBLIC's judgment thoroughly refuted by Senator Vest in the debate on the Edmunds bill, but Judge Bradley adopts and expands it in an opinion that resembles a stake wagon speech in a Salt Lake than it does a Supreme Court opincampaign for district constable more offices want to save themselves FURTHER CONFISCATION COM MENTS. It is gratifying to see that such public journals in the United States as take the pains to examine the confiscation scheme, by which the "Mormon" Church is to be robbed of its property, perceive not only the wrong that is sought to be perpetrated, but the dangerous departure from constitutional principles "As property escheating' is confis- belled, Mr. Bradley makes his case The Newark, N. J. News says: "It is not surprising to find that the the United States and Justices Field Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of and Lamar dissent from the decision of the majority of the court in regard to the absolute power of Congress over the Territories to the extent in volved in the seizure, appropriation and distribution of Mormon funds under a peculiar construction of the Edmunds law. "There can be no doubt that Conthe sophistical humbug that Mormon gress is entitled to sweep to one side polygamy is a religious institution, and as such exempt from legal penalties such as are provided for bigamy and irregular cohabitation. But an assertion of a right to seize and use funds contributed by a community as of the money have been proved to be being totally forfeited because some of the people connected with the control violators of the common law and of the canons of morality, is a different matter. Federal Government has the right to "It may not be doubted that the inflict penalties, in the way of improperty, on the claim that the cor- violating laws, but the confiscation of prisonment and fine, on persons poration was rebellious, and that it has no heirs. Neither point is made property or of funds is violently subdirectly. The opinion is full of in-versive of all republican tenets. But direction from beginning to end ex- the Court says: 'Congress had before directness in asserting that Mormon-ing by its resources an immense power cept in the trumpery bravery of its it a contumacious organization wieldism and Mormons are very wicked. in the Territory of Utah, and employ"How polygamy justities robbery ing these resources in constantly atnowhere appears in tempting to oppose, subvert and When escheat, so-called, is confisca- the will of the Government of the the opinion. thwart the legislation of Congress and tion, alienating property from those United States. Under such circumand restrictions which it involves. who have earned it and vesting it in those who have not, whether in pri- stances we have no doubt of the right In the present temper of the pub-vate individuals or in the association of Congress to do as it did.' lic mind it would be almost useless to attempt to show that the excuse offered for the proposed infamy is without foundation. And yet it is a fact that the pretext advanced for this intended spoliation is false. The "Mormon" Church exercises asserted that polygyny was a common practice in such religious corno such power and has no such in-porations, and there is no such differtentions as those alleged. And there is nothing in its doctrine or discipline in any way antagonistic to the United States or to free republican institutions. of the same individuals in a govern- Court, headed by Chief Justice Fuller, "The minority of the Supreme holds that the authority of Congress limited, but it is subject to constituover Territorial affairs is not untional limitations. It may suppress pleas advanced in its defense, but the polygamy, irrespective of religious minority contends that Congress has no power to seize and confiscate the property of corporations because they have been guilty of a crime.'" Providence, R. I., Telegram, of the This is an editorial from the 23d inst: ence between polygyny and polygamy escheat better than Mr. Hood's. The as to make Mr. Bradley's view of only question in either case was of whether those holding th property alleged to be an 'escheat' id earned "The Springfield Union takes it upit. Certainly the Mormon earned on itself to say, in commenting upon But be this as it may, the court of theirs by working it out of the desert the Supreme Court decision wiping last resort should be above that in- through innumerable hards ps and out the Mormon Church organizawith such self-sacrifices fluence which makes "public pol- never been exceeded in the history of the justices had been Democrats as have tion,' that 'it is clear that if a majority icy" the excuse for departures from of the country. And it is just as this result would not have been constitutional lines, and apparent that the rest of the people achieved. Messrs. Fuller, Field and which constituting in their collective capac- Lamar all join in a dissenting opinion, justifies infractions of the supreme lity the government of the United and there is a rumor in Washington that the Chief Justice regards his action as a good political move, and has the presidential bee in his bonnet.' This is an insult to the three dissenting justices, and to the Supreme Court, for which there is not the slightest excuse, nor is there the slightest foundation in the premise which the Union formulates to give some sort of plausible color to its imputation upon the honesty of purpose of the three d ssenting justices. If it did not know the facts in the case it ought to be ashamed of its ignorance as well as of its insult, and if it did know the facts and wilfully perverted them in order to make an opportunity to insult the court, it ought to be despised by all fair-minded men both for its lie and for its insult. "The justices who dissented from the decision of the majority did not dissent because they wished to protect or perpetuate the Mormon Church, but because they believed the confiscation of the funds of a corporation an act specially forbidden by the The minority opinion Constitution. says: Congress unquestionably has power to and the nation makes war. would be mon strous. All male Quakers abhor wor. Com- exerted against a smalt sect, which may cr The dissenting justices, each a democrat The same journal has also the subsuppress polygamy, and it is immaterial joined editorial which is worthy whether the crime was committed in the name of religion. But Congress has no power to seize and confiscate the property of corporations because they may have been guilty of crime In the judgment of the minority the diversion of the fund contem plated by Congress is in contravention o the specific limitations of the Constitution. "The minority opinion agrees that polygamy may be suppressed by Congress, although the Union pictures the justices who signed it as supporters of the Mormon Church, and as dissenting from the decision signed by the majority of the court because they are Democrats and because they believed such a course would promote the chances of one of their number to be considered a presidential candidate. "We do not remember to have known a more contemptible exhibition of ignorant partizanship than this." The Chicago Times, which has always been a strong anti-"Mormon" paper, but has advanced argument instead of the common abuse, says in its issue of the 21st inst: of perusal: "The Mormon is under the ban, legislative and judicial. The Supreme Court approves the confiscation of the property of the church. For answer to this an organ of the faith declares that 'while Mormons A hoped to retain their property they have Under the present law the governor, sec instead of ignorant y passing any such measure as these bilis contemplate, Congres send a committee to Utah to inquire into the present state of the Territory and learn how unjust would be the action thoughtlessly proposed. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. The Mormon organ, inviting Joseph Saith that the church would suffer attention to the so-called prophecy of persecution, declares with some spirit that it is the duty of the people unjustly dis cr minated against lawfully to contend against the deprivation of their rights and have the power to adjust them, that the demand redress of wrongs from those who Lord may be justified when He shall take part in the controversy on the side cf the oppressed.' The god of battles is invoked on all sides of a controversy. Wholly without reference to the aid which the pious Mormon expects, the United States ought to be true under all circumstances to its cardinal principle of religious freedom. Let the polygamist, Mormon or other be purished, another, whatever his creed. but let one sectary have equal chance with The antiMormon zeal, craftily promoted by greed of power, by partisan interest, by the spirit of in its headlong progress is breaking down intolerance, is overstepping all bounds and useful barriers. Sixty million Americans asserting that the crime of polygamy shall not be cloaked by religion have nothing to fear from a handful of Latter-day Saints relatively few of whom are polygamists." A GNAT SNUBBED. AT a session of the City Council, held May 27th, an individual of the name of J. B. Walden, whose only importance consists of his being city treasurer, made his native smallness conspicuous by offering the following resolution: I respectfully request your honorable body to institute a spring cleaning process n your council room, and that you remove from the walls some of its present decorstions, which, in my opinion, are not in keeping with its present surroundings. We suggest to the formulator of this resolution that the council chamber can ne ver be properly cleaned so long as he retains a seat in it. If he were removed from his present position, and given one suited to his calibre, he probably would be laboring in a subordinate capacity under Mr. Showell. The decision of the Supreme Coart is only part of the general and,it may be said, indiscriminate assault upon Mormonism. "Another decision of the Supreme Court Polygamy has become the pretext only for There is no mistaking the decorais something of a surprise, except in the attacking this sect that, polygamy aside, tions to which Mr. Walden referred. fact that the hief Justice and Associates has much in common with other religious Field and Lamar present a strong dissent- denominations and possesses a member. They were, doubtless, the portraits ing opinion. It was sought under the Ed- ship of pre-eminently industrious and munds law to dissolve the Mormon Church frugal people. The House has approved of Brigham Young-the chief piocorporation, annul its charter, direct the the constitution roposed for the State of neer of this immense western reappointment of a receiver to wind up its Id ho, containing a sweeping clause, an affairs, and escheat to the United States unjust and dangerous clause as the Times gion-and of the ex-mayors of this all the real estate owned by the Church believes, disfranchising all Mormons merein excess of $50,000 which was not at the ly because they are Mormons and wholly city. The mental capacity of this date of the Edmunds act held for purpose without reference to polygamous practice great mau (Brigham Young) is acof burial or worship The excuse of this on their part. New York might with equal drastic enactment was the practice of propriety forbid hakers to vote. Minne- knowledged in every quarter of the polygamy by certain Mora.ons who justi sota might just as reasonably place Men fied this barbarism as a tenet of their re nonites under the ban or Indiana deny all civilized globe, and it is not consisligion. To punish individual polygamists political rights to the Campbellites. But tent that a person of such a make-up is one thing, to apply the doctrine of es the Idaho proceeding is not singular in its cheat to a religious corporation in a State attack upon religious freedom. Ed- as that of the present treasurer of tolerant of all forms of religious worship munds bas presented to a Republican the city corporation should feel comis quite another. It amounts practically Congress a further driastic measure. to à denial of the liberty of conscience, Culllom, of Illinois, Stewart of Vermont, fortable in the presence of even his which is so beneficent and So poli and Struble, of Iowa, have each presented tic a principle that under no circum bills for the total disfranchisement of all shadow. The elephant and mosquistances ought to be intrenched upon. A Mormons in Utah. This narrow, vicious tene: of the Quaker's faith adjures him to and bigoted proposition excites to are constructed on bases so difalarm abhor war. he individual Quaker, owing among the best Gentiles in Salt Lake City ferent that they are not suited to allegiance to a state which in the exercise They have united in a protest against these of its sovereign power carries on a war, vills, giving as then reason that there has each other's society. may be drafte i and compelled to serve in been a successful effort to bury the differthe army of his country, just as the indi-ence of creed and unite the business men vidual Mormon who is a polygamist may be tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, for the penalty of plural marriages, no matter how loudly he may proclaim that in offending against the civil he is obeying a religious law. But to confiscate to the public the property of Quaker religious corporations because Quakers oppose warfare of Utah in various enterprises for mutual and work disaster to the interests of the Territory. if a Mormon is not a polyga- It is creditable to the council that they properly tabled the resolution. If Walden had received his just deserts he would have been similarly treated at the February election. As it was, the best element of his own |