Washington sentinel., 1854-05-07

reasoning 90 Dut insult his intelligence.
THE TURKS AND THE MORMONs-
POLYGAMY AND DONATIONS OBJ
| PUBLIC LANDS.
On Wednesday and Thursday the House o
Representatives was engaged in the considera
iion of the Utah bill, the object Of which is t.
establish the Office of surveyor-general, to gran
donations of land to actual settlers, and fo
other purposes. The donations of land to set
tiers was sought to be confined by proviso t.
those inhabitants of Utah who were not immor
ally, viciously, and impiously addicted to tha
oriental and patriarchal habit Of polygamy
That proviso is in the following words: " Pro
rided, That the benefits of this act shall no
extend to any person who shall now, or at AM
time hereafter, be the husband of more thar
one wife,
This bill and the proviso gave rise to varie
gated and interesting debate, in which law
politics, morality, religion, State rights, abo
honism, single blessedness, and double and
quadruple blessedness 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 rs often de-
MED, was brought to light. That fact is, that
the Mormons are Turks in all save the matter
of wearing turfAns 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 wa.
not one who had the boldness I'd declare him
selfin favor of polygamy. The patriarchal ant
amiable delegate from young Turkey, even
did not declare himself in favor of it. Thi
may have been owing to policy, to an indispo
sition to speak, or possibly to the fact that he
is "declining in the vale of years." and feel
more comfortable under the Christian thar
the Mahomedan matrimonial system.
There we're members, however, who in stran
of fervid eloquence, Indignantly denounced th
Mormon practice of having plurality of wives
The highly respected delegate from Utal
thought that the more wives man had til,
more land he needed to support them, Will,
the Hon. Mr.. Smith, from New York, though
that one farm was enough for any man, n,
matter how many wives he had, and while tn,
! balance of the speakers thought that if ma,
had more than one wife he ought not to b,
presented with one solitary acre of land.
Several of the abolition members, who con
stantly, in season and out of season, pirate o
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 max,
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 thi
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 anc
carefully on the subject, we incline to tn,
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, tn,
Mormons, or the people Of any Territory, nigh
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, a social institution. doe,
it not, like any other domestic institution il
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 stronge,
religious and political objections to the Ma
homedan system Of matrimony, polygamy, thar
ourselves; but it seems to US that the safety o
non-intervention men and State-rights ner
would require that the domestic institution o
matrimony, like the domestic institution o
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 small
| scale, as was remarked by one Of the mem