Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-04-20

OF the patronage ouu CotfUl VI OoHSIeSo, VI
else, admitting the subfdinate and depen-
dent relation Q: tie Territories, he must
acknowledge their subsection to the para
mount authority of Congress-.
These principles. : understand. Mr.
Speaker, have the asset of the honorable
member from North Carolina, Mr.. Branch;
yet he, too. is opposed p the bill from the
Judiciary Committee. In other words, he
admits the power Of Congress to iiterpose
for the suppression ofpolygamy in Utah,
but shrinks from its eSertion, lest, by APP
plication to another Object, it be employed
for the extinction Of slavery in the Territor
ries. Sir, am surprised that SO logical and
accurate thinker as MY honorable friend
/ from North Carolina shluld be misled by so
false an analogy. The Hspublican party may
associate polygamy ald slavery as twin
lrelics Of barbarisn;' nj dispute the nhilo-
sophy Of the classification. l deny that they
stand Upon the same guarantees, and will
fall together when driven from the shelter Of
common security. In the interest Of sla-
very, Irepudiate, the suggestion that its
rights in the Territories may be impaired by
any legitimate act of Federal legislation. =
The authority of Congress ever the Terrific
ries is exclusive, but not absolute, being re-
stricted by the nature of it, trust and the
principles Of the Constitution. The Terri
tories are the common property Of the Sta
ties. aud the power of Congress over them
cannot be perverted to the partial advantage
Of any section. That would be repugnant
to justice and subversive Of the equality Of
the States. Slavery exists under legal sane
ton in fifteen States of the C5nfederacy, and
its exclusion by Congress from the Federal
territory would be in fragrant derogation Of
the rights of the South and the equitable
spirit of the Constitution. Wherefore, Con-
gress cannot interpose to the disparagemeDt
of slavery in the Territories. But polyga
enjoys no such recognition and no siich pro-
lection. It is not only unknown to the Con-
stltution, but is repugnant to every princi-
pie ofrepublican government It does not
exist in any State; but, on the contrary, is
prohibited, by penal enactment, in every
State of the Union Hence | affirm that its
suppression in the Territories by the direct
agency Of Congress would promote the estab-
llshed policy Of the States, and operate in
ylndication of the prevalent spirit of the Con-
Ftitutlon. There is, then, nuassociation, no
alliance, mo analogy between polygamy and
slavery; and the prohibition of the one sys-
tenn by an egertion Of Federal power in no
way impairs the security Of the other.
Mr.. Speaker, there remains still another
objection on principle to the bill before the
House. Some gentlemen understand poly
Eamy to be an Institution of the Mormon
Church, and, as such, to enjoy impunity un-
Ter that clause of the Constitution which
teorbids the enactment ofany law in restraint
Of religious liberty.
New, sir, this argumest, if sound IN rrin-
ciple, will avail to cover any abotnination
which affects areligious character It will
suffice for the protection Of Thugism or SUIT
tee, as we'll as polygamy. Plainly, then; it
is an unsound argument and perniclous
philosophy which conducts to such absurd
and mschievous consequences.
But, sir, it is not true that polygamy pre-
tends to any religious sanction. 1t IS not
true that the Mormons practice it as pious
observance.
Mr.. HoornR. The gentleman from Vir-
ginia is in error when he states that polyga-
my is not recognized by the religion Of the
people Of Utah. say to him that it is re-
cognized by the Mormon faith
Mr.. PRYOR.. Mr.. Speaker, have looked
through the Mormon Bible-a disgusting
farrago Of nonsense and blasphemy, written
in ribald parody of the more obvious charac-
teristlcs Of Scripture phraseology-l have
examined this only dogmatic exposition OF
tile Mormon faith, and nowhere do [ find a
word in recognition Of the practice of poly
gamy..
1t is objected again, sir, even by some Of
those who approve the principles of the bill
before the House, that the coercve lnterpo-
sitlon of Congress for the SUPPRESSION ofpoly-
gamy in the Territories will provoke VIC
lent resistance from the Mormon population.
Sir, this is the first time have ever known
an argument against Legislation for the abate-
ment ct an abuse to be bassd upon the
strength and insolence of that abuse. If,
indeed, it be true that Mormouism is already
SO powerful and audacious as to defy the le
gltimate authority Of Congress, then is there
urgent need for the most prompt and eHec-
tive prohibition Of polygamy. The folly OF
the man in Horace, who waited for the wa
tiers to pass by that he might cross the river
will be surpassed by us, if we defer legisla-
ton against polygamy from apprehension Of
It's resentment and resources. Sir, this OBJ
lection to the bill only commends 1.-THE more
strongly to my judgement.
Having, I trust, successfully surmounted
the difficulties in the way Of congressional
legislation for the suppression Of polygamy in
the Territories, cannot suppose if necessary
to urge any inducemeDt to an immediate and
vigorous exertion of the power. I will not
suspect for moment that any gentlemen
here hesitates to apply whatever authority
Congress may possess, to the instant extir-
patton Of that scandalous inlquity. Its exist
ence for so long period has already com
promised the character of the country. Sir,
there is something shoekingly inccngruous
in the association Of the polygamous practi-
ces of barbarous age and adebased people.
with the, Christian civilization Of the nine
tenth century and the chastened liberties Of
this enlightened nation. We may boast Of
our freedom, our refinement, and our pow
er; but in the glow of patriotic pride We must
blush With j sense of responsibility for The
scarlet superstitions Of this Mormon sect.
What person Of pure sensibillties and pious
aspirations but il shocked and humliated by