The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-03-20
ATimeIy nlow-The Antt.Poly Gnmy mn

-OppOsiti0n Of Democrats,
1tseems 10 be the late Of tie Democracy |
10 oppose legislation which the moral sense
Of this country demands. This was the
case in regard TO slavery and the war,
and now 1t sagain the case in regardto the
passage through Congress Of the bill to
suppress and extirpatO polygamy in Utah.
For twenty years, at one time and another,
this country has been trying to throttle this
vice, and bill alter bill has been introduce
ed and discussed in Congress with that OBJ
iect in view, but always to suffer defeat be-
cause Of so.called constitutional objec-
tons. The Edmunds Senate bill that
passed the House last week, and thatisno wa
law, was, as in the case Of each Of It's pre-
decessors, attacked as unconstitutional.
There were AZ votes against it in the House
and Al OF them were Democrats. During
the running debate oil the l4tb, when short
speeches were In order, Mr.. Kenna, Of this
State, while protesting to be heartily in
favor Of the object sought by
the bill, attacked it as uncon.
stitutional. He said that he would
vote for It lifts Objectionable features were
eliminated. This sthe old story in regard to
all proposed anti.pelygamous Legislation.
This was the way the Poland bill was
killed, the way that the Frelinghuysen bill
was killed, and the way that the Logan
bill was killed. An angel from heaven
could not propose an effective bill against
polygamy that the great sticklers for the
. Constitution would not attack. Through
the Constitution the Democrats sought to
xiii ofF war bills and reconstruction bills Of
allkinds, and also all the anti.slavery and
suffrage amendments The Constitution
was constantly invoked by the opposition
against everything that has been accom-
plished by the Republican party for the last
twenty years.
Bat, thank heaven, the Edmands bill has
passed. Edmunds Is considered the great
est constitutional lawyer in Congress
quite the equal Of Mr.. Kenna in this res
pect and is the some gentleman whom
the judges Of the Supreme Court were so
anxious to see upon their bench. We
mention this fact rs calculated to break
the force, to some slight degree, OF Mr..
Kenna's charge that the bill is uncon-
stitutional. Edmunds' opinion ought to at
least Offset Mr. Kenna's. In order to let
the readers Of the ISTELuGESCER see Just
what the law as passed aims at, and the
modus operandi by which it proposes to
accomplish the great and desirable object
Of eradicating polygamy, We append ii in
full, as follows:
"A Bill to amend section $3.50 Of the Re-
pised Statutes OF the United States in
reference to bigamy, and for other pur-
poses.
BE Il enacted, ETC., That section $3.50 Of
the Revised Statutes Of the United States
be and the same is hereby amended so us
toread as follows-namely: Every person
who has q vile living, who in Territory
or other place over which the United States
have exclusive Jurisdiction, hereafter mar
ries another, whether married or single,
aud any man who hereafter, simultaneous.
ly or on the same day, marries more than
one woman in Territory or other place
over which the United States have excIu.
siye jurisdiction, is guilty OF polygdmy, and
shall be punished by fine OF not more
than $500 and by imprisonment for term
ofnot more than five years; but this section
shall not extend to any person by reason
OF any former marriage whose husband or
wife by such marriage shall have been
absent for five successive years, and is not
known TO such person to be living and is
believed by such person TO be dead; nor to
any person by reason OF any former mar
riage which shall have been Dissolved BY
valid decree Of 3 competent court, nor to
any person by reason OF any former mar.
fiage which shall have been pronounced
void by n valid decree OF u competent court
on the grounds Of nullity of the marriage
contract.
SEc. 2. That the foregoing provisions
shalt not affect the prosecution or punish.
ment OF any ofense already committed
against the section amended by the first
section Of this act.
SIC. 8. Thatif any male person in Ter.
ritory or other place over which the Uni
ted States have exclusive jurisdiction here
alter cohabtts With more than one woman
he shall be deemed guilty of misde.
Me9nor, or on conviction thereof shall be
punished by fine OF not more than $500.
or by imprisonment for not more than six
months, or by both said punishments, in
the discretion Of the court.
SIC. 4. That counts for any and all OF
the otIenses named in sections and . OF
this act may be Joined in the same infor.
nation or Indictment.
SEC. 3. That in any prosecution for big
amy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation,
under any statute OF the United States, Il
shall be sufficient cause OF challenge to
any person drawn or summoned us Jury.
man or talesman, first, that he is or has
been living IN the practice OF bigamy,
polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation with
more than one woman, or that he is or has
been guilty OF an oilense punishable by
either Of the foregoing sections, or by Sec.
5,S52 OF the Revised Statutes OF the United
States, or the act Of July l., 1865, entitled
An act to punish and prevent the practice
Of polygany in tho Territories OF the
United States and other places, and disap.
proving and annnlling certain acts OF the
Legislative Assembly IN the Territory OF
Utah." or. second, that he believes it right
for man TO have more than one living
and undiyorced wife At the same time, or 10
live in the practice OF cohabiting with
more than one woman; and any person
appearing or offered Us juror or tatcsman
and challenged on either Of the foregoing
grounds, may be questioned on bis oath as
% the existence OF any such cause Of chal-
lenge, and other evidence may be intro.
duced bearing upon the question raised by
such challenge; and this question shall be
tried by the court. But as to the first
ground OF challenge before mentioned, the
peEson challenged shall not be bound to
answer It II he shall say upon his oath
that he declines on the ground that his an.
swer may tend TO criminate himself, and il
he shall answer as to said first ground his
answer shall not be given in evidence in
any criminal prosecution against him for