Davis v. Beason

Citation133 U.S. 333,10 S.Ct. 299,33 L.Ed. 637
PartiesDAVIS v. BEASON, Sheriff
Decision Date03 February 1890
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Statement of Case from pages 333-335 intentionally omitted] F. S. Richards, S. Shellabarger, and J. M. Wilson, for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 337-341 intentionally omitted] H. W. Smith, for appellee.

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

On this appeal our only inquiry is whether the district court of the territory had jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment, of which the defendant was found guilty. If it had jurisdiction, we can go no further. We cannot look into any alleged errors in its rulings, on the trial of the defendant. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be turned into a writ of error to review the action of that court. Nor can we inquire whether the evidence established the fact alleged, that the defendant was a member of an order or organization known as the 'Mormon Church,' called the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,' or the fact that the order of organization taught and counseled its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and polygamy, as duties arising from membership therein. On this hearing we can only consider whether, these allegations being taken as true, an offense was committed of which the territorial court had jurisdiction to try the defendant. And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases. The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. The oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punishments inflicted, by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform, in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in q estion. It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.

On this subject the observations of this court through the late Chief Justice WAITE, in Reynolds v. U. S., are pertinent. 98 U. S. 145, 165, 166. In that case the defendant was indicted and convicted under section 5352 of the Revised Statutes, which declared that 'every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another whether married or single, in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not more than five years.' The case being brought here, the court, after referring to a law passed in December, 1788, by the state of Virginia, punishing bigamy and polygamy with death, said that from that day there never had been a time in any state of the Union when polygamy had not been an offense against society, cognizable by the civil courts, and punished with more or less severity; and added: 'Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is, nevertheless, in most civilized nations a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social...

To continue reading

Request your trial
278 cases
  • First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 24 d3 Abril d3 1957
    ...practitioners swept into the First Amendment. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 161, 167, 25 L.Ed. 244, and Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637, denied any such claim to the practice of polygamy and bigamy. Other claims may well arise which deserve the same fate.......
  • Katz v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 6 d4 Outubro d4 1977
    ...or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. (Citation.) As stated in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637, 'With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expres......
  • In re Green
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 28 d3 Junho d3 1972
    ... ... 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d ... 563 (1961); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, ... 303--04, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); Davis v ... Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890) ... Thus, it was stated in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 ... U.S. 158, 166--67, ... ...
  • Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 26 d5 Março d5 1982
    ...once interpreted the word "religion" as used in the First Amendment to require belief in a deity, see Davis v. Beason, 1890, 133 U.S. 333, 342, 10 S.Ct. 299, 300, 33 L.Ed. 637, they have long since abandoned so restrictive a definition. In Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 16......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 books & journal articles
  • The First Amendment: churches seeking sanctuary for the sins of the fathers.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 31 No. 2, January 2004
    • 1 d4 Janeiro d4 2004
    ...461 U.S. 574, 603-05 (1983); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (45.) U.S. CONST. amend. I. (46.) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971). (47.) Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 55 (1985). (48.) Edwar......
  • RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 28 No. 2, March 2005
    • 22 d2 Março d2 2005
    ...of things, religious). This statement is broader than definitions given by earlier Supreme Court justices. See, e.g., Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890) ("[T]he term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reveren......
  • Felon disenfranchisement: law, history, policy, and politics.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 32 No. 5, September 2005
    • 1 d4 Setembro d4 2005
    ...(1898), Alabama (1901), and Virginia (1901-02). Shapiro, supra note 63, at 540-41. (65.) Clegg, supra note 14. (66.) Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 346-47 (1890); see also Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (67.) See supra note 57 and accompanying text. (68.) U.S. CONST. amend. XXIV, [section] 1......
  • NEUTRALITY WITHOUT A TAPE MEASURE: ACCOMMODATING RELIGION AFTER AMERICAN LEGION.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review No. 19, January 2021
    • 1 d5 Janeiro d5 2021
    ...that an order of Catholic nuns operated and used to serve the general public did not violate the Establishment Clause); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) (ruling that an Idaho territorial requirement that voters and office holders must swear an oath that they do not believe in polygamous......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT