But, in the _second_ place, _there are grave doubts as to its constitutionality_. It is with much hesitation that we call in question the constitutionality of an act which is fathered by so conscientious a constitutionalist as Senator Edmunds and carried by a large majority in so conservative a body as the United States Senate. From _their_ standpoint, perhaps, it is constitutional; but from another standpoint it seems to be plainly unconstitutional. Congress is specifically prohibited from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Mormon Church is a religious organization, no matter how false its religion may be. The Edmunds Bill places it under the care of the Government of the United States, and provides for the administration of all its temporal affairs. Now, if this can be done respecting the Mormon Church, it can be done respecting the Catholic Church or any one of the many Protestant establishments in our land. And who can doubt that if all the vast property, real and personal, of the Catholic Church were taken possession of by the Government, and its management placed in the hands of fourteen trustees appointed by the President--who can doubt that it would prohibit materially the free exercise of that religion by its millions of communicants in this country? Clearly, then, the attempt to control the Mormon Church corporation by Government officials is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and entirely foreign to the spirit of American institutions. If the United States once enters upon the business of administering church property, the Mormons may not be the last victims. Besides, if Congress has the right to appoint trustees of a religious corporation in the Territories, then the State Legislatures would have the right to appoint similar trustees in the States, and there would be nothing to prevent a legislative body governed by infidels from putting all church property into secular hands, or a Protestant or a Roman Catholic legislative body from dealing in a similar manner with the trustees of churches of an opposite faith. And, therefore, we regard this proposed act to place the control of the Mormon Church property into hands antagonistic to its spirit as a most dangerous departure from American principles. But, in the _third_ place, _the act would, in all probability, be ineffective_. It is precisely what the rules of blood and iron in Germany under the inspiration of Bismarck attempted to do with the Catholic Church a few years ago. Bismarck said just what Senator Edmunds said: "We do not propose to prohibit anybody from believing in and practising the faith of the Catholic Church, but the Government of Germany intends to take charge of all its temporal affairs--to appropriate its property and administer it as we see fit to do." But there in Germany, where the power of the Government is absolute, this was found impossible.