New-York tribune., 1873-01-01
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
THE UTAH TRIALS FOR POLYGAMY.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND AMERICAN LAW IN
y HARMONY.


TO the Editor Of The Trfbuas
SIR: Your able editorial on the questions OF
Constitutional and Territorial Law and your ausion 10
expostons OF Christian ethics bearing on the questions
decided by the Supreme Court in the appeal from Judge
McKean's decisions call attention TO an important fact
too often overlooked by clerical interpreters OF the Old
and New Testament. The New Testament ethics recog
Dzed In all Christian countries precedent In judicial
decisions declared by English usts to be part Of the
common law, and appealed TO always in American
authority both uies and Judges are IN all
respects in accord with the declared principle Of the
American Constitution shat no statute can have an
post Jacto application.
The principle OF polygamy II true Is opposed to the
teachings Of ethics recognized in ancient and modern
times, as has been abundsntly shown Poygamy has
never been tolerated In Asatic or African history
cept perqusite OF official distinction. the moral
systems OF Confcus and Zoroaster and the laws of Menu
and Mohammed abundantly testify. TIE laws Of Moses
and the history OF the Hebrew patrarchs abundanty
show also that polygamy exceptional In practice,
always recognized both az violation OF natural
law and In opposition to the Mosaic statutes OF course
the idea official prerogative" 10 monopoze the
wives which all men alike entitled and OF which
the Creator has furnished more than one for each
man, will never be recognized under modern civza-
tOn, least Of all under American republicanism. Nor
can American law be shaped to frame laws OF inherit
ance for the children OF poygamists they must remain
forever illegtimates and disinherited The United
States statute OF 1852 therefore, legtmate repub
can institutions demanded it, aud it must be main
tanned.
But its retrospective action the men who had a
plurality of prior to tho statute OF 1882 cannot
be Legitimate. SO, also, any indirect effort to bring
Brigham Young and his associates under general statutes
against lewdnese such those quoted by Judge McKean
is certainly unprofessional and his rulings were justly
set aside by the Supreme Court. SO says American
jurisprudence and so say Christian ethics. The case
ju in point is In the early Christian Church. and Is
alluded by the greatest OF the Christian Apostles
Writing to Timothy, Bishop of the Christian Church at
Ephesus the Apostle Paul says that the bishop must
be "the husband OF wife," The same is repeated
to Titus Bishop the Island of Crete. OF course this
does not imply that he must be married man; for
Paul was unmarried Nor does it, as the Greek
Church contends, imply that priest may
marry once, but at the loss Of his wife
must not marry again, for that church forbids
bishops" Of whom the apostle here writes to marry at
ALL There is possible explanation that natural
except that given by early interpreters Of this Christian
staute-men living The time when It written
that they could appreciate the circumstances and thus
give the natural explanation. In the Asiac provinces
OF Greece, though not In Greece proper poygamy
listed an official distinction. II now OF emf
nence became Christian however ut in other respects
he might be the Office of Christian bishop plurality
was to be an example OF every virtue; monogamy
the law OF the Greeks and Romans in all ages 1t alone
consistent with human equality and fraternity;
and. therefore, though might be Christian and
In the church while united 10 more than wife, he
could not be representative OF Christian ethics 1t is
then perfectly manifest that Christian ethics proposed
no retrospective action human relation. The man
bound TO wife by personal and by civil law could
not be loosed from her. it virtue, not crime for
those already pledged than wife to be true
to the bond while, however, unions of this sort
TO cease Of precisely this nature have arisen
in India and China among modern converts to Chris
tiany, and, most unfortunately for the Gospel well
for the law interpretations OF the Christian statute
just quoted have overlooked tho necessary inference
that poly gamy already contracted must be legitimate
Indeed, It might be Virtue since wives divorced under
such circumstances would be unjustly treated,
less the Apostle ntmaes they chose 10 be released
from the bond. American law and Christian ethics
ought 10 be in harmony; they nearly than
who disposed TO lead human thought suppose
Ge1 York, Dec II, 1879. J.B