New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-12-07
LETTERS FROM THE PEOpLF
THE UTAH STATUTE AGAINST ADULTERY.

The UTAH STATUTE AGAINST ADULTERY.
ITS PUEPOsE-wHY IT ~ USED IN THE TRIALS
AN AUTHORIZED STATEMENT OF THE vrZws
ENTERTAINED by THOSE CONDUCTING rus
PROSECUTION.
TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: Some respectable editors and journal.
lists have been caught by the absurd s0phsn put forth
by tho Mormon papers here, "That the Utah statute
against adultery was not intended by the makers 10
cover cases OF pOygamy plural marriages. therefor
tho trial and conviction OF Hawkins under it, were I'M
warranted and Illegal" These editors and Journalists
exhibit profound Ignorance Of the facts and tho law In
the
Let Tic submit few facts, and tho law a. It u IN
Utah:
First: Be 1t known, that there Is not word or syL
liable in tho Utah statutes establishing or protecting
po;ygamy plural marriages.
Second: The w under which Hawkins was convicted
simply makes adultery crime and attaches severe pen
altcs but docs not define what adultery is or what
shaU be adultery in Utah.
Had those wiso legislators In that any other Of their
statutes declared that poygamy or plural marriages.
according to thc Mormon Church-shouId not DO sdul.
terry courts would have been bound to construc tho
law according to the plainly expressed intent OF tho
LEGISLATURE, had not the law OF Congress prohibiting
poyamy in the Territories rendered such law null
ana void.
But rs tho Legislature did not define what adultery
should be In Utah, The court bound to take jniicM
notice VI tie common law ana wclldoned legal mean
Ing Of adultery Would it not be dgngcd business for
court Of justice to HINT UP and adopt for Its rule OF law
the secret intent and whims OF religious secti
But the identical Legislature that enacted the law Of
adultery, without defining what this should be- have BY
plain inference accepted the well established law that
nan Fave but ono lawful wife ut tine and that
sn r an G onen aS s i i. enat
that lilo gitiUatc children and their nothers shall in
hcrt In Ike legitimate children" &C. Now,
whom did hc legs il it not their plural
wives AMI their polygimous children Tney could not
tha ,e tine and ccrainy the Mormos viii not admit
that their virtue was 80 lax and bastlrdy 80 rife among
the saints tOrcl urc such law. Hence II Is morally
certain that tns law wa. made Tor 1neir Poly ga"ou'
wives and children. whom they eau icsitimate n, Al.
Hh, cs re %"w II IS MORAL certain that at the tim:
they enacted the law against murder (Which mas the
ssscM Of blood mt a. Is that they practccd
poiygamy, for they denied both with eqia zeal A..
throat n @ Sd 1tGe e bs Of the apostae FROM the
Church hi, so and the saint, have been tsuSnt
believe in and do believe H. and have practced TINS
human sacrifice honestly they have poygamy; and
OF aposate souls ia Utah have been sa.ed IN ths
tiles have shared the same fate For TINS an EFFORT nov
making TO bring the murdercrs to Justice Now whiie
tns S IL s fsist a ID Y' s assnd he
against adultery 70 OF poysaDy u Is ESr
cover cases VI blood atOnement" But would any ra-
s Dn I roSer i Court aSa shield the
indictment tor throacuttnR, under tho blood ATONE
But u" s'p stntc Of Utah murder Is palmer
I'm s than the statute against adult
terry How, then could the courts do otherwise than
coIstrlle the law according to It's PLAIN ana obvious
meaningl How could they presume the Legislature
meant anything else than what they have expressed 10
plain EIglsni On this point, ChletJustico MtrShaii
says In INC OF Fisher ag. Blight, Cranchs Rc
"Wnen law Is plain and unambiSuOus. whether IL DO
expressed general limited terms, tho iesislaute
should be ted to what thoy plainly oppressed
and consequently is left for cOns truct0n"
Buf again. complaint is made by some reSpectabts
ne Spapcrs Presentations are not made aganst
under law OF Congress OF le6l instead OF
The l. an statute. The reason Is plain ~ al wno KNOW
the iac; as they exist here. Tnc law OF Congress Is
law against bigany, and IL is found TO be utterly inprac.
ticabio to make legal proof OF marriage In TUG
great majority Of cases, the ilrst marriage LOOK p.c, ~
GlrO,r and the Sta,cs the second and every aduOii!
marriage takes III the secret Endowment House.
where none but initiated IRE permitted ~ roSl
and you might well attempt t. cxor iroh Inc tatuoic
priest the secrets of the cvn!essioa US ~ get from
these Mormon witnesses the sccr:.3 Of tho Eld0wmcnt
House." A few years 40 CneI justice tisay Kept y
Grand Jury in ses.9S Tor several months, jill VAIN Nv
tempt to get indictments uuder that law not sinxIS
case vuGl,l he legally proven AMI again, ny law "
Congress all crimes under U. s. laws Ol Imc eraioo
Liglmy are barre1, after two years from thor tOH
SION ami tho crime OF bigamy Is cOInimttei Dy INC
second or additional marriage ceremony. AFTER Two
years from last marriage cercmOy prosecution ~
barred and parties only be prO>ccut "a una r tho
Utah for adultery, for scivons c0saDitaton
All will agree that the leaders shOuid hrst % prose-
cuted their ignorant dupes; Dlt porhIpS hcIo
"a these ol;f OL.i icrs com DO
proven to havo married additional ~iic "lthh tno
last two years. We
SAT- Lake Guy, Nov. 10, 1871