New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-18

Ot UpnOldlng III, DuJ oppoHO" ="
specific measure for that purpose. Ana
perhaps the most remarkable record they
made in this regard was upon the queS-
ton of resumption in 1876, when they
solcmnly resolved that they were III IA
vor of resumption but unalterably opposed
to the particular measure" by which alone
resumption was soon after effected. Ihey are
always in favor of the popular cause but for
ever obicctng to the "particular measure by
which that cause is maintained. 1t is upon
the record they have made that the charge Is
justified that they are at their old tricks,
masking under opposition to this particular
MEASURE" their hostility to its end and It's
general purpose.
But they say the charge is absurd, since the
Morm0ns are of no earthly use to the Democrats
or any other party. being comparatively few
in number and represented at the most by only
one delegate in Congress, and that not ten
votes could be gained outside of Utah by con-
ciliating the pOygamous sentiment OF the
country. And it does seem absurd mt first blush
that the Democrats should fly i'll the face OF
the public sentiment of the country Wheh
there i, so little to be gained by it. But, UNI
happily, the utter absurdity of Il proposition
affords no proof of its rejection by the Demo
cratic party. It is not the first time by any
means that they have made themselves rdicu-
lous by bidding for a few votes at snch rum
Gus rate. They have been trading for the past
ten years with every faction in the market
aAl have invariably sacrificed from ten to
hundred votes for every one gained. 80 1t Is
no answer to the charge that it seems absurd.
The absurd is precisely what the party goes
out Of its way to do If any other reason IL
needed for believing that they are opposed to
the abolition of pOlygamy, it may perhaps
he found in the fact that they instinct
lively oppose the settlement of any pollt-
zeal question, upon the general principle
that unsettled questions are always offer
ing opportunities for attack to the party
out of power. They would rather have the
Mormon problem remain unHolved than to see
it settled by Republicans upon any terms
which will eliminate it as a possible factor in
our politics.
Another reason for believing that they are
ut heart opposed to any interference with
polygamy is the ground upon which they
oppose this particular measure" They say
ii is can abominable bill that 1T gIatiiics
" that itch for mcddiing with other people
affairs ON moral grounds which has afflicted
" the Republican party from the beginning"
There are some Thousands OF people IN the
" United States" says The World "who
" cannot rest under the knowledge that
" other people in one Of the Territories OF
" Che United States, for whose behavior
" they are in no wise responsible, choose
"to practise polygamy." Well, what is the
plain inference from language Ike this
Simply that the Democrats for whom this silly
paper speaks, and who are opposed 40 " tins
particular MEASURE are not afflicted with the
- itch referred to, have no disposition to
" NEEDLE with other peoples affairs on moral
and are willing to rest under the
knowledge that other people, for whose beha
vior they are not responsible, choose to prac
tSe polygmmy. Which is precisely what we
mean by saying that the Democrats, under
guisc of hostility to this particular measure
are opposed TO any interference whatever with
polygamy. Il is the same old story: the
Democrats insisting on nOn-intcrfcrcnce with
polygamy as they formerly did with slavery,
that they are opposed to polygamy
as they were to slavery, but doing all they
can to protect the former as they did the lat
ter by raising objections to the particular
measures " relating to it, on the ground that
it must not be meddled with by those who are
in no wise responsible for it. But we shall
see polygamy go the way of slavery, notwitl
standing the Democratic claim that it must
not be interfered with.