Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1870-08-30
Reardinx the Lion.


Since the days Of chivalry we do
not know that anything pluckier has
been recorded than the visit Of the
Rev. J. r. Newman to Salt Lake
City to do battle, logical and exeget-
zeal. with the wicked and obscene
Dragon of Polygamy. 1t must have
required good deal of enthusiasm
to go all that distance to refute what
all virtuous persons consider to be an
immortality, and all sensible persons
an absurdity. But Mr.. Newman
was, in a manner, constrained to go.
lie had preached sermon on the
subject, which was heard of in Utah;
whercupon The Itch Telegraph asked
why he did not come to that Terri
tory to preach it Sin the new Taber-
nacle, before 10000 Mormons, with
Orson Hyde orsome other prominent
Mormon to answer" Mr.. Newman
Immediately packed his trunk,
bought his railway ticket, and start
cd very much as Don Quixote would
have done under like circumstances.
But 1t was one thing to go to Utah,
and quite another thing to get either
brigham or his man Orson to meet
him in debate. Young, coolly, for
August, replied that he had given
no challenge; nor didShe great Orson
show any desire to enter the lists.
Apparently, Mr.. Newman had his
long journey for his pains. But
Young was too shrewd man not to
see that he had lost ground by declin-
ing the contest; and he therefore sent
Mr.. Newman an invitation to come
and preach in the Tabernacle. Mr..
Newman replied that he had already
made arrangements to preach in the
NJ. Z. Westinghouse. And he did
preach there "f0r three mortal hours"
in "a sweltering August afternoon"
sermon brimful of texts, to prove
that there might be concubinage
among the Jews, but that, in our
sense Of the word, they had no polyg-
amy. Since then the battle royal
itself has finally been arranged and
fought. In other columns we present
the details.
We do not here attempt any alb
stract of the arguments. Much AS
we respect Mr.. Newman, we do not
consider that such Of them rs were
drawn from the manners and customs
of the Jews had any pertinence or
consequence. We believe that with
Christianity came better and a.
nobler and a purer Dispensation.
The polygamy of the Jews, or the
concubinage, was temporary and
local, and not of Divine ordination.
If otherwise, why do not the Jews,
MS a body, now practice it? They
virtually acknowledge that there
was no command Of perpetual valid
ity to maintain polygamy; for while
in matters of their law they are near
~ as strict as ever, they cheerfully
obey our Laws of Marriage. To be
sure, they could not otherwise with
out being sent to the Penitentiary;
but we have no reason to believe
that they wish to do otherwise.
We prefer to base our hostility to
polygamy upon the fact that all
modern civilized nations are mOnog-
amous, SO far as that word implies
having one wife at time. Mr..
Newman shows that such Is the
doctrine of Christianity, and such
being its doctrine, there Is no room
left for an argument. The example
of Utah alone shows how inconsist-
ent is Polygamy with refinement,
with intellectual culture, with the
happiness Of woman. The preaching
in the Tabernacle is course and rude,
and often blaspheInous; the feminine
instincts perpetually revolt against
this dissertation Of the institution Of
marriage; and there is no man who
looks at the matter nationally who
does not see that there can be moth
ing permanent in the custom. It.
may not be easy to put 1t down, but
80 long aA III lasts II Il 4 national
shame and reproach. Nothing but
the great distance OF Utah from the
seat OF GovefsmeHt has eayedliti but
now that considerable party In
Utah itself has been organized against
it, we may consider IL IS doomed.
1t must pass away at least with the
present generation. IN r ZFi6ss'e.