Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-28
TIE GAZETTE: FORT woRTHArExAs WEDNESDAY. MAY 80

parts, the ten acres which the law
allowed TO be rented to one compauy
ana placed one company In possession
OF all hotel privileges in the park, and
drove everybody else out, and now the
congress Of the United States was to be |!
made football, to be kicked about |
py men outside Of It for their own
personal gain. He [Loganl would |
nave to do some plain speaking
on this subject, even IL 1t caused pain,
he had been lobbied more this winter
N oehalf OF this railroad by an official
TINS government. who was ia receipt
~ SoVo,W q year, than he ever had
oeen lobbied In his Lie. or course. he
knew the gentleman well, but he
thought 1t in very bad taste for an of.
ncer OF department having charge Of
the park to become lobbyist
Ior the destruction OF thepsrk. What
ever that gentleman may think of his
bLogan's] remarks was immaterial.
mat gentleman and Mr.. Logan had
always been good friends, but he Lo-
gan lost his respect for any man that
would lobby for corp ,ration. He
protested against the destruction of the
PARK, and said every word stated by
him was true.
Although congress had absolutely
Ioroiuuen monopoly, 1t has been per-
United, and the park was under con-
tr0i OF private corporation.
me matter then went over, and the
utah bill was taken up.
Mr.. Brown said the Edmunds bill
was shameful violation of the consti.
tuition. He contrasted what he termed
polygamy in New England and polyg-
amy In Utah. The picture he drew,
ne said, was drawn more In sorrow
than in anger. There had been
over $1,000 divorces granted in New
England in the last twenty years, de-
stroying 1900 families and turning
loose o., 900 persons to marry again, all
Illegally except those who were d.
vorced for adultery or fornication. AS.
snming that one-third had been
divorced for adultery. it would
ieave $4,000 persons divorced
and married again, who were
practicing polygamy in New England,
while the Utah commission, acting I'M
der the Edmunds bill, after having
searched Utah with test oath, could
lind but 1900 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 f9ticide
to an extent that If continued
would in less than a century depopu-
late New England of its puritan stock.
The notion of the Mormons was
Impossible; not so among
the libertines In Massachu etts
Within the last twenty pears, popula-
ton had increased Al per cent, and
marriages 62 per cent, while divorces
| increased lI7 per cent. 1t behooves
Christians and patriots to ponder the
consequences that must follow from
such a state of things. Society and
the churches denounced polygamy and
demanded its suppression, and the
I churches were right, but how then
without censure see their ministers
marriages. II ministers and the
duty, public sentiment would
soon sweep from our statute books the
wicked and immoral divorce laws.
Mr.. Brown claimed no right to lecture
either the Christian churches or their
ministers, hut as a citizen and senator
he felt 1t his duty to express his convic-
ton with regard to this great evil,
which was undermining the sanctity
of the family, the safety of society and
the existence of the state. Many per
sons are advocating putting the Nor
mons to the sword. 1t would be an
outrage on morality and decency to at
tempt to slaughter helpless
people because they enter
tanned views on moral questions to
which we could not subscribe. 1t was
absurd to assert that the Mormons were
in rebellion. No people could be In
rebellion who did not resist laws by
force. The Mormons held themselves
at all times ready to respond to legal
| process. A people SO conducting
themselves could not be in rebellion
in any legal sense. Mr.. Brown turned
some sarcastic periods on what he
termed the intermeddling of New
England in other peoples business, as
in the affairs of the Southern states.
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 voters were careful to
| exclude only those who c0habited with
more than one woman in the marriage
tie. The Gentle who had 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. Brown
was ready to sanction all constitutional
legislation which could be devised for
the suppression Of polygamy In Utah
and by illegal divorces, prostitn
ton and feticide In New
England and elsewhere, but ht
was not willing to violate
the oath he had taken to support the
constitution, to crafty New England
intermeddling, or to suppress sect or
denomination, however unpopular II
: might be. :,
Mr.. Hoar said he had heard enough
of Mr.. Browns speech to comprehend
its character, but not its motive. Il
did not seem possible that any senator
mad taken so much pains as his speech
indicated for mere speech making
} malice and malignant attack on thu
, people Of New England. Mr.. Hoai
could only infer that Mormonism was
more In accord with the senator's
convictions than opposed to them
The senator from Georgia Brown
had made speech, the logical infer
r ence of which was that polygamy wa
1 better than the lawful marriage OF ont
: husband TO one wife. Each section o