Washington sentinel., 1854-05-07

that any man will pay for land, no matter how
valuable it may be, when the law gives it to
him for nothing. The idea is simply ridicu-
lous, and they who believe that the President
will sanction the homestead bill on such silly
reasoning do but insult his intelligence
THE TURKS AND THE MORMONs-
POLYGAMY AND DONATIONS OF
PUBLIC LANDS.
| On Wednesday and Thursday the House OF
Representatives was engaged in the considera-
rion of the Utah bill, the object Of which is to
establish the Office of surveyorgeneral, to grant
donations of land to actual settlers and for
other purposes. The donations of land to set
tiers was sought to be confined by proviso to
those inhabitants of Utah who were not immor-
ally, viciously, and impiously addicted to that
oriental and patriarchal habit of polygamy
That proviso is in the following words g Pro.
rided, That the benefits of this act shall not
extend to any person who shall now, or at any
time hereafter, be the husband Of more than
one wife"
| This bill and the proviso gave rise to varie-
gated and interesting debate, in which law,
politics, morality, religion, State rights, aboli-
tionisn, single blessedness, and double and
quadruple bessedness were all touched upon
Many members participated in the debate
members from all sections, and Of every hue
and variety of opinion.
| A fact often asserted before, and as often de-
MED, was brought to light. That fact is that
the Mormons are Turks in all save the matter
of wearing turbans and eating opium. Their
respect for the softer sex betrays them into the
error of having more wives than the laws of
civilized nations allow. They are polyga-
mists.
The matter Of polygamy was treated phiic-
sophically, enthusiastically, and politically.
Whatever may have been the private feelings
OF members, however great their respect, love,
and admiration of the gentler sex, there was
not one who had the boldness to declare him.
selfin favor of poygamy. The patriarchal and
} amiable delegate from young Turkey, even,
did not declare himself in favor of it. This
may have been owing to policy, to an indispo-
stion to speak, or possibly to the fact that he
is declining in the vale Of years" and feels
more comfortable under the Christian than
the Mahomedan matrimonial system.
There we're members, however, who, in strains
of fervid eloquence, Indignantly denounced the
Mormon practice of having plurality of wives
The highly respected delegate from Utah
thought that the more wives a man had the
more land he needed to support them, while
the Hon. Mr.. Smith, from New York, thought
that one farm was enough for any man, no
matter how many wives he had, and while the
!, balance of the speakers thought that if a man
had more than one wife he ought not to be
presented with one solitary acre of land.
i Several Of the abolition members, who con.
stantly, in season and out of season. prate OF
philanthropy, religion, southerners, and negroes,
took occasion to make illusions to southern
society that were gross vulgar, and indefensi-
Bile. If not too indecent a theme for the col.
umns of respectable paper, we would make
some comparisons between people oftheir stripe
and of their region and the people of the south.
But we dismiss them, as did the honorable Mr..
Phillips, with indignant scorn.
Several serious questions are involved in this
bill. One is: as polygamy is part of the reli-
| gion Of the Mormons, and as the Constitution
allows religious freedom, has Congress the righ,
and the power TO interfere in the premises ?
Without having thought very thoroughly and
carefully on the subject, we incline to the
| opinion that there is, not much in this argu-
ment. In order to evade and avoid the scru.
tiny and the controlling action of Congress, the
Mormons, or the people Of any Territory, might
incorporate any enormity, any barbarous usage,
any shocking depravity, (not properly apper-
tanning to religion in their religious creed.
! Another question is: as polygamy is do.
mestic institution, social institution, does
it not, like any other domestic institution in
the Territories, claim exemption from the CON.
trolling power Of the federal government !?
Does not the doctrine Of congressional non.
Intervention apply?
Now, seriously, no one could have stronger
religious and political objections to the Ma
homedan system Of matrimony, polygamy, than
ourselves; but it seems to us that the safety Of
nonintervention men and State-rights men
would require that the domestic institution Of
matrimony, like the domestic institution OF
slavery, should be left TO domestic legislation.
Not that we by any means put the two institu-
-.
tions on the same footing for one is expressly
recognised by the Constitution, and the other
is not.
Again, this bill is homestead bill on a small
scale, as was remarked BY one Of the mem