Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1884-05-29
SENATE.

| Washington, 1.-THE Utah bill was
taken up. Senator Brown said the
Edmunds bill was a shameful viola
ton of the constitution. He contrast
ed what he termed polygamy in New
England and polygamy in Utah. The
picture be drew, he said, was drawn
more in sorrow than in anger. There
had been over "a 600 divorces granted
in New England within the last twen-
ty years, destroying $4,000 families
and turning loose $4,000 persons to
marry again. All were Illegal except
those who were DIVORCED for adultery
or fornication. Assuming that one
third of them had been divorced for
adultery, it would leave sc, 600 persons
divorced aud married again who were
practicing polygamy in New England,
while in Utah, the commissioners,
acting under the Edmunds bill, after
having reached Utah with the test
oath, could find but $4,000 men and
women who would not swear they had
never in their lives been guilty of po-
lygamy. Prostitution was practiccd
in New England to an alarming ex-
tent, and fGticide to the extent that.
il continued, would, in less than GEN.
tury, depopulate New England of its
Puritan stock. In n nation of Nor
mons this was impossible. Not SO in
nation of libertines. In Massachu-
sets within the last twenty years, the
population had increased Al per cent.
and marriages 81 per cent, while di-
yorces increased 147 per cent.
1t behooves christians and patriots to
ponder the consequence that must fol-
low from such a state of society. The
churches denounce polygamy and de-
mand its suppression; and churches
were right. but how could they wink
at illegal divorce, how, without CEN
sure, see their ministers Off ciating for
petty fee, at adulterous marriages?
If ministers and churches did their
whole duty, public sentiment would
soon sweep from our statute books,
and immoralize divorce laws. Brown
claimed no right TO lecture either
christian churches or their ministers:
but as a citizen and senator, he felt it
his duty to express his conviction. 1t
was absurd to assert that the Nor
mons were i'm rebellion. No people
could be in rebellion who did not re-
sist the laws by force. The Mormons
held themselves, at all times, ready to
people SO conducting themselves could
not be i'm rebellion in any legal sense
Brown turned some sarcastic periods
on what he termed the interference of
New England in other peoples bust
ness. as in the affairs OF The southern
states. People did not object so much
to the practice in Utah. as in the name
bv which they were called. The Utah
commissioners in prescribing the test
oath for voters, were careful to eX-
cludc ONLY those who cohabited with
more than one woman sin the mar
rage relations" The gentle who had
one wife aud one or more mistresses,
could take the oath without difficulty.
There was an immense amount of hy-
pocrasv in the whole thing Brown
was ready to sanction all constitution
al legislation which could be devised
for the suppression of polygamy in
Utah and of illegal divorce, prostitu-
ton and fpticide in'New England aud
elsewhere: but he was not willing to
violate the oath he had taken to sup.
port the constitution TO CRAFTY New
England, or TO suppress any section or
denomination, however unpopular it
might be,
Hoar laid h, had heard
enough of Senator 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
northumberland and mali9-
nant-against the people of New Eug-
land. Senator Hoar could ONLY infer
that Mornonism was more in accord
with the senator's convictions than
opposed to them. The senator from
Georgia, Brown, had made a speech,
the logical inference of which was that
polygamy was better than lawful
marriage-one husband to one wife.
Each country and each section of
each country may have vices. What
ever there was in New England that
was a rcpr roach to her, Hoar said.w was
carefully written down by New Eng
land historians. There were sections
of country in which that course was