The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-05-28

granted in New England within the last
twenty years, destroying $1,000 families
and turning loose $4,000 persons to
marry again, all illegally, except
those who were divorced for adultery or feFnica
ton. Assuming that one-third of them had been
divorced for adultery it would leave SO, GOO per
sons divorced and married again who were prac-
tieing polygamy in New England. while the
Utah commission, acting under the Edmunds
bill. after having searched Utah with a test oath,
could find but u, 600 men and women who would
not swear they had never in their lives been
guilty of polygamy. Prostitution was practiced
in New England to an alarming extent, and feti-
eide to an extent that if continued,
would, in less than a century, depop-
ulate New England of its Puritan stock.
nation of Mormons was impossible; not so a
nation of lbertines. In Massachusetts, within
the last twenty years the population had in
creased A per cent and marriages 60 per cent,
while divorces increased 147 per cent. 1t be-
hooved the Christian and the patriot to ponder
the consequences that must follow from such
state of society The churches denounced
'polygamy and demanded its suppression, and
the churches were right. But how, then, could
they wink at illegal divorced How, without
censure, see their ministers officiating for
petty fee at adulterous marriages! Ii ministers
public sentiment would soon sweep from
statute books the wicked and i'm
moral divorce laws. Mr.. Brown claimed
no right to lecture either the Christian
senator he felt it his duty to express his convic-
tions with regard to this great evil which was
undermining the sanetity of the family, the
safety of society. and the existence OF the state
Many persons advocated putting the Mormons
to the sword 1t would he an outrage upon
morality and decency to attempt the slaughter
of a helpless people because they entertained
views on moral questions TO which we could not
subscribe. 1t was absurd to assert that the
3Iornons were in rebellion. No people could be
in rebellion who did not resist the laws by force
The Mo"mons held themselves at al times ready
to respond. to legal process. A people
so conducting themselves could not be
in rebellion in any legal sense.
Mr Brown turned on what he termed the inter
meddng of New England in other peoples bust
ness, as in the affairs of the Southern States.
People did not object so much to practices In
Utah as to the names by which they were called.
The Utah commissioners, in prescribing test
oath for voter were careful to exclude only
those who habited with more than one woman
in the marriage relation" The gentle who
had one wife and one or more mistresses could
take the oath without difficulty There was an
immense amount of can't and hypocrisy in the
whole thing. Mr.. Brown was ready to sanction
all constitutional legislation which could be de
vised for the suppression of polygamy IN Utah,
and of illegal divorce. prostitution and f9ticide
in New England and elsewhere, but he was not
willing to violate the oath he had taken to sup
port the Constitution TO crafty New England
ntermeddling, nor to suppress any sect or de
nomination, however unpopular 1t might De-
Mr.. HoAR's REPLY.
Mr.. 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 mere speech, making
a malignant attack on the people of New
England Mr. Hoar could only infer that Nor
Inonism was more IN accord with
that senator's convictions than opposed to
them. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Brown
had made speech, the logical inference from
which was that polYgamy was better than the
lawful marriage Of one husband to one wife.
Each country and each section of each country
may have vices. but whatever there was in New
England that was a reproaeh to her Mr.. Hoar
said, was carefully written down by New Eng
land historians There were sections Of the
country in which that course was not pursued.
If he Mr. Hoar) cared to follow the style and
Georgia he could say some things
without even reference to statistics, which
would be sufficiently disagreeable. With de-
sire to credit that portion of the country from
which that senator came with as much proprie-
ty as he could, Mr.. Hoar thought that the pres
ence of large number of nulattoes renamed
to be accounted for in some way but he would
not enter upon this sort of argument. This was
a dill having specific purpose, applicable to
Utah.
motion to adjourn was made, to which Nh.
Hoar objected and the vote being a tie-27 yeas
To - nays-the motion failed.
A motion was mmediately made to go into ex
ecutrve session, resulting in another tie vote-20
yeas TO % nays.
MIR. Hoar- chen said he would not insist on
keeping the Senate in session, but expressed a
hope that tomorrow there would be long sit
tlng in order to pass the bill through. Ad
JouPned