, 1884-05-28
Brown. Of Georgia, on
the Mormon Question.
He Roughly Rakes Old Massa.
chusetts' Morality
And Compares Mormon Polyg-
amy With Divorces.
Rebuking Massachusetts

Rebuking Massachusetts.
WASHINGTON, May 27.-The Utah
bill was taken up in the Senate. Senator
Brown said the Edmund's bill was Q
shameful violation of the constitution.
He contrasted what he termed ''poly,
gamy'' Of New England and polygamy o.
Utah. The picture he drew, he said, was
drawn more in sorrow than in anger. -
There have been over 81, 900 divorces
granted in New England within the last
twenty years, destroying , 7,00O families,
and turning loose "a, 900 persons to
marry again, all Illegally except those who
were divorced for adultery discovered in
the other party. Assuming that one
third of them had been divorced for
adultery, il would leave Sc, 900 divorced
and married again, who were practicing
~polygamy in New England, while
the commission, acting under
the Edmund's dill, after having
searched with the test oath could find but
200 men and women who would not
swear they had never in their lives been
guilty of polygamy. Prostitution was
practised in New England to an alarming
extent; ioeticide to an extent that fit con
tinued would in less than a century de
populate New England of its Puritan
stock. In a nation of Mormons it was
impossible. Not so in a nation of liber-
tines. In Massachusetts, within the last
twenty years, the population had in
creased A per cent and marriages G2 per
cent while divorces increased l47 per
cent. 1t behoovcd the Christian and
patriot to ponder on the consequences
that must follow from such a state of So
ciety. Churches denounced polygamy
and demanded its suppression and the
churches were right. But how then could
they wink at Illegal divorce? How,
without censure, see their ministers
officiating, for q petty fee, at
adulterous marriages. II ministers
and churches did their whole duty public
sentiment would soon sweep from our
statute books the wicked and immoral di-
vOrce laws. Mr.. Brown claimed no right
to lecture to either Christian churches or
their ministers, but as a citizen and a Sen
ator he felt it his duty TO express his con
v%ictions with regard TO this great evil
which was undermining the sanctity OF the
family, the safety of society and the exist
ence of the state. Many persons advocat-
ed putting the Mormons to the sword. 1t
would be an outrage upon morality and
decency to attempt the slaughter Of help
ltSS DtbIlc bcNdNst iltN entertained views
on moral questions TO which the world
assert that the MormOns were in rebellion.
No people could be in rebellion who did
not resist the laws by force. The Nor
mons held themselves at all times ready
to respond to legal process. A people so
conducting themselves could not be in re
bcllion in any legal sense of the
term. Mr.. Brown turned some sarcastic
periods on what he termed the inter
meddling of New England in other peo-
pies business, as in the affairs of Southern
States. The people did not object so
much to the practices in Utah as to the
names by which they were called. The
Utah commissioners in prescribing the
test oath for the voter were careful to eX-
clude only those who cohabitcd with more
than one woman. In the marriage re
latiou2 the gentle with one wife and one
or more mistresses could take the oath
without difficulty. There was an immense
amount of cant and hypocrisy in the
whole thing. Mr.. Brown was ready TO sane
ton all conventional legislation which
could be devised for the suppression of
polygamy in Utah and all illegal divorces,
prostitution and fpticide in New England
and elsewhere, but he was not willing to
violate the oath he had taken to support
the constitution to crafty New England
lntcrmeddlng or suppress any sect or de
nomination, however unpopular it might
be.
Senator Hoar said he had heard enough
of Mr.. Browns speech to comprehend its
character. but not its motive. 1t did not
seem possible that any senator had taken
so much pains as his speech indicated for
the mere purpose of making a malicious
and malignant attack on the people OF
New England. Senator Hoar could only
infer that MormOnism was more in accord
with that senator's convictions than OPP
posed to them. The senator from
Georgia had made a speech, the logical
inference Of which was that polygamy
was better than the lawful marriage of a
husband to one wife. Each country and
each section of each country may have
vice, but whatever there was in New Eng
land that was no reproach TO her. If he
(Hoar) cared to follow the style
Of argument followed by the
senator from Georgia, he could
say something without even reference
or statistics which would be sufficiently
disagrecable with the desire to credit that
portion of the country from which that
Senator came, with as much propriety as
he could. Senator Hoar thought the
presence of large number of mulatoes
remained to be accounted for in the same
way. He would not enter upon this sort Of
argument. This was a bill having a spe-
cific purpose applicable to Utah. With.
out action Onthe bill the Senate adjourned.
A fine lot IF Hernfnrd stncl FIR sola n,