New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-28

their evil teaching ana example. IAo -
sumption of scl-rghteousness on the part
of the polygamists in this did not seem to
strike him as absurd, nor the fallacy OF his
assertion that God dispensed his blessings
unevenly, as, for example, to the righteous
many wives, to the wicked none, which, as
well as the last proposition mentioned, ne
claimed the Scriptures bore witness to- he
was happy, he said, to have DR.. Newman
and his friends, full of philanthropy, as 1t
were, come here and endeavor to reclaim
them from their beastly habits, rather than
enact laws to imprisOn their men anu leave
their women to suffer. He ended by q Sc
we're arraignment of homogeneous nations
for their prostitution, infanticlde, ETC., al
hiding to New York in particular, part OF
whose creed it was to have but one wife
around. and then to debauch themselves
and each other in dens of prostitution. He
called upon his distinguished friend to lay
before the people the refutation OF those
passa ges of the Bible he had adducced the
day before sanctioning polygamy. He asked
him to prove that those laws were limited,
if they were limited.
MIR. NEwMAN's SECOND SPEECH.
Mr.. Newman devoted about five minutes
to a notice of Mr.. Pratts scattering re
marks, and then asked if the gentleman had
adduced a law sanctioning pOlygamy. Law,
be said was the expression of the leglsla-
tive will. In legislating on any subject
there must be a grand organic act referring
to that subject, in the light OF which the
general code and all particular laws must
be interpreted. No such law had been, or
could be, produced, commanding polygamy,
but, on the other hand, in Leviticus XVIII,
49, we had such law prohibiting 1t
" Neither shalt thou take wife to her SIS
ter, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness,
besides the other in her lifetime" or, as the
marginal reading is, "take one wife to
another" This rendering was sustained by
CoOhson, Bishop Jewell, DR.. Edwards, and
DIR. Dwight. According to DR.. Edwards.
the Hebrew words translated "a wife to her
sister," were found in the original but eight
times, and in each case they referred to i'll
animate objects, such as the wings OF the
cherubim mortices, lemons, etc, and slgnl-
fled coupling together, one to another. Ihey
denoted the exact likeness of one thing to
another, and here forbade, as the margin
expressed it, the taking OF one wife to
another in her lifetime. But suppose, said
MIR. Newman, as the polygamists clam, that
it means to prohibit the marriage OF two.
literal sisters, the Mormon practicing that
must admit that he was living in violation
OF Gods law.
Mr.. Newman then examined the texts
quoted by Mr. Pratt on the day before,
showing that his construction OF them was
based on a gratuitous assumption on his
part that the Israelites were polygamOus
nation when the law of Moses was given.
Not one of these Wanted texts mentioned
polygamy, nor. construed III the light OF
the great prohibition of polygamy lie had
presented, could any sanction of it be tor
tured from them. He examined them seri-
atm, and showed cOncluSively that they
bore no such construction as Mr.. Pratt had
riyen Them considered by themselves.
Mr. Newman then made a telling alluslOn
to Mr.. Pratts having given up the question
at issue at the close of his hour, on the day
before. by saying in effect that the Mormons
claimed no right to practice polygamy be-
cause God commanded 1t, and his people
practiced it in ancient times, but because
thew had been expressly commanded OF
God for themselves to do it, and asked him
why, then, he had endeavored to drag the
Bible into the question, i'll the Seer, IN his
correspondence with him IN New York
journal, and from this stand.
He then charged that Mr.. Pratt had
brought nothing but downright assumptions
as yet, unsupported by a particle OF evi-
dence, to the support OF the Affirmative OF
the question under debate. He had as
sumed that the Hebrews were polysamous
nation in the wilderness: that these laws
were given to regulate an institution al
ready existing: that they were gen
eral in their application, applying to ALL
which he (Dr. Newman) had proved they
were not: and none of these assumptions
had he proved. He denied that the He
brews were a polygamous nation at that
time. and challenged the proof of the con-
trary. He reaifirlned that among the laws
God gave them after He has called them tor
a special purpose. regulating the commerce
e fhn great lax IhOu shalt
not take one wife to another. That was the
great law of marriage as established by
God in the time of mans innocence; re-eS-
tablished at the time of the flood. recorded
by Moses, re-enacted by Christ and St.
Paul, and denied that Mr.. Pratt had ad-
duced one word from the Bible that di-
rected or permitted any other kind OF mar
rage. 1t was no evidence to bring passage
after passage, which his learned friend
knew. if construed in favor of polygamy
would be in direct opposition to the great
central law on this subject.
No abstract can do Justice to Mr.. New
mans argument of this day. His rendering
OF LeyiticIs xviii, 49,, and his positive de
NAL that the Israelites in the wilderness
were polygamOus as a nation, seemed to
startle the audience. and altogether the
effort impressed them 40 that they had little
to say on dispensing.
THIRD DA1-MR. PRATT.
This was Sunday and there were about
5000 persons present, The debate was
opened by singing as well as prayer
Mr. Pratt admitted that arguments had
now been adduced on both sides. In an
swer to Mr.. Newman's challenge, he entered
| into an arithmetical calculation to prove
that the Israelites were polygamous in the
DAYS of Moses He took Mr.. Newman
| statement of the entire number OF them
| $500, 900. He claimed that from the law OF
| Pharaoh commanding the destruction of the
| maid infants of the Hebrews, and on ac
! count of its execution in one out of every
| five hundred eases each year, for eighty
wears there were 400. 600 more maria geablt
women than men. In Numbers i, 46, he
found the number of men, above twenty
years OF age, stated at 6O3, $50, and he cal
| culated the whole number of families a
! 10000 from the 3D. families whose first
born were males. given in Numbers iii. 43
| From these statistics he deduced that Their,
were l.003,550 women and 6O3,55O mel
| older than twenty years, and $4,000 child
rem under twenty years, divided into 30,00'
families He then apportioned to each o
the 10000 heads of families seven wives ant
seventy children, leaving 573,5j0 unmaI
RED men, and 1913, $50 unmarried womel
over twenty years of age, and concluded
| that he had thereby established tina
Israel was both polygamous and monogram
ous in the time OF Moses.
He next attempted to demonstrate tina
the regulation Of an institution was no
sanction, nor was it condemnation; 70
while it was claimed that God gave law
regulating monogamy, it would hardly b
admitted that this regulation condemned il
He next took up what Mr.. Newman
claimed to be the great law prohibiting pc
lygamy, Leviticus xviii IS. According t.
King James translation, it read: ''Neithe
shalt thou take wife to her sister" Iii
friend Newman. together with Messrs
| Dwinht Edwards and others dis acre.