The New York herald., 1870-05-30

bne. The women OF his court are therefore meant.
To give these unto Dayld's bosom simply implies
was carried was place OF projection fgurativey
expressed. Il does not mean that they became MS
re m woph pacss q sse Is
(See Genesis iv., 10 and 49, also Deut., XXI, 49,.
WHY SHOULD MR.. NEWMAN OBJECT
not the inspired judges and leaders Of israel gene.
rally have many wlvess Was 1t not this class OF men
great work @ . to accomplish In Israeli Why should
Saul, Ia the estimation Of Mr. Newman, be an excep-
OF q lis
for before he exalted TO the throne OF Israel he
only had eight wives, God understanding the faith
prosecutor, and having proved him TO be man after
his own heart felt willing to give the wives Of Saul
LORD nfS@s him that lie as would @ have have ' given more
Indeed, Nathan the prophet represents the wives OF
ons % Of S
rae' who testified that he Himself gave these wives
to him. and assigns this AZ reason why he should
not have taken the zone little eve lamb' belonging
to his nelghbor. II the LORD God had merely given
never would have assigned this as reason why
David should not nave taken that which did not be-
long @ SnS w sSe @ n
doctor to do away with The force OF tins passage 1t
stands out In bold relief, like many other passages
already quoted, as an everlasting testimony that
u0D Is THE GREAT AUTHOR
OF both polygamy ana homogeneous marriages.
that he not only commanded, under certain Circum.
as gift from his own hands. Mr.. Newman further
states that I'm Deuteronomy xvfi H. poiygamy Is Is
posityey forbidden by ,a sna ne
This is supposed by Mr. Newman to limit the
future king OF Israel to one wife. II he had read
the preceding verse he would have found another
command OF very similar nature. or. at least. in
shall not multiply horses TO himself" Does this
mean that the King must not have more than one one
yoes Of wVO wond 81 wcks ana u
Of the law Of Code Is Mr.. Newman prepared to
assert and maintain that the king Is limited by tins
aW to one horseY Is 1t not
MORE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
to say that the king must not multiply horses and
wives by himself in excess but be satisfied with the
number which the Lord should give him and not
covet his neighbours horses or wives? Man does not
aives t them. And as Mr.. Newman admits marriage
to be divine institution neither king nor any OF MS
sub, ,ects could take wife or wives legally unless
they were given to them by the Lord. Therefore
when David or Solomon multiplied wives unto HIM
self from among nations which the Lord had cursed
and among whom Israel were forbidden TO inter-
marry he transgressed ihe law OF God. Such mar.
rages were not legal nor divine. But when God
gave him wives he was not transgfcssor OF the
MIR. NEWMAN REJECTS THE OBVIOUS MEANING
OF Paul that bishop must be the husband OF one
wife--that Is he must be a married mainland takes
the grounl that poygamsts must not be selected for
church officials. But why should Paul mention these
NOUS families in the Christian Church? II plurality
OF wives were not permitted in the Christian church
TO give such caution In the selection OF officers
from among the members would be not only absurd
but positively ridiculous. What would the
good Methodists Of Massachusetts, think II Mr..
careful in their selection Of bishops and deacOns not
to appoint any church member to that office who
was poly gamistr They would indeed think that the
would say, "Why this canton? There are no poly
gamist members permitted In our Church; conse-
quenty 1t Is impossible for us to select such for
the ministry. Tne argument of Mr.. Newman proves
more than he Intended: 1t proves most lndlSputaby
that plurality OF wives did exist in the Christian
Church in the first century. MI. Newman next ap'
TUE CENSUS OF THE WORLD
as to the relative proportion OF IN lies and females
that born which he believes to be condemnatory
of polygamy He clearly proves that in the United
States there Is an excess or males born; that In
Great Britain there is an excess of 7Oo 900 females;
that In France, Austria Spain, Italy and Prussia
there Is an excess OF LOLA 600 females but thinks
the civil list in the last five European nations ARE
added 1t will IN measure equaize the two sexes.
From these statistical facts he draws the following
cOncIusiOn:-
Thus naurs provides for the I night Of each man to one
wse s n s0as en @ out Of aa
rights
This conclusion, Mt first sight and without renec
ton, seems very plausible one But we mu t re-
member that the equality OF males and females
which are born is one thing, and the equality OF
males anu females when they arrive at a marriage
abe age Is another From the ages or fifteen to
thirty years may he considered the most general
statistical facts as derived from the census during
this mar.iageabie period? Let the census OF 1860
speak
the males exceed the females in infancy and up to
the age OF about fifteen years. After passing this
age the ORDER Is reversed; the females become the
more numerous class, and increasingly So till at the
ldestages1from ninety upwards-the females ex-
As United lite States Census for 1901 y ~ WV "'S
In the United States and Territories In 1860 the
excess OF marriageabe females between the ages OF
a nnd fyynn hQ q ntnl "A, In
Upper and Lower Canada, s,O87. In Great Britain
the excess OF remales between fifteen and thirty
Sssry As ea % s y ss
] females were greatly in excess, beng over 10000
In Pennsylvanil they were over 5000 In excess In
New York State they ere over o., 900 in excess.
1t should be remembered that these statistics were
taken before the war. In the war million or up.
wards Of brave men in the very prime of life were
marriageable females TO swell the ranks OF those al
ready in excess. These are st tlistical Facts which
none can dsprove. What conclusion should be drawn
from these data? The very opposite OF those stated
TIE LAWS OF TIE NATION
and Of the States and Territories should be SC
framed as TO give these million ladies possibility o
| obtaining husbands. AS 1t is the monogamic laws
OF evey State have taken away tie natural rights Of
| women. These cruel laws speak in crushing tones
| OF thunder to million ieart-broken, despairine
females. saying, ''You shall have 10 husbands &c
cheer I'd comfort you through ife's rugged Journey
| You shall be punished with fines and imprisonment Il
you dare 10 be united in diock with man already
/ wretched liz OF old maids. However mucn you may
| desire the happne IS OF the conjuga state; however
! much you may depIore your sad condition anu The
injustice OF your conntry's laws, you have nyhope
for the divine institution of DiDie poygamy Is ca It
IRON the couasel OF tie nation' No prov isions
| made Ill our free government for these sorrowful
| Outcasts from the family circle. Under the cruel,
unjust and unconstitutional laws OF our otherwise
| happy country
THERE Is NO HOPE or MARRIAGE
for hun lres or thousands OF the fairer SIX, unies
they orsake Their country and hunt for hu balds in
X
cess, or else seek distant corner OF the earth
where the rights OF females are respected and Bible
| poygamy n0signorel. What honest, upright, vir.
tuOus females. who understand the Bible institutions
of marriage, would not infinitely prefer plural mar
! rage with one good man and become the mothers
OF happy children than TO live the wretched lives o
Old maids or 10 weller in the fitn OF prostitution
| Supposng there was an equality Of maria geabe
| males and females In oar nation, Is it not well at
tested fact that hundreds OF thousands OF males WI
| not marry, many OF whom prefer to crafty the.i
llsts In prostituton Ought our laws, therefore, Il
! be so uni us,y framed as TO
| PUNISH THE SURPLUS FEMALES
| arising from this wicked cause with perpetual cell