Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1884-04-24
moRMoEIsM.
Moses rhatoher In Answer to Gov. murray

Moses Thatcher In Answer to Gov. Murray
ST. Louis Republican.
His comments on the dover question,
as reported In the Eastern papers, give
an entirely false idea of the property
rights of women in Utah. The fact is.
they are equal to men in their legal right
to acquire, hold, and transfer real and per
sonal property. The husband has no con-
troll whatever over the property of his
wife, and need not join with her in deed
ingit away. She is absolutely free In this
respect. Hundreds of women in Utah
hold the title to their homes and other
real estate, entirely independent of their
husbands. 1t is true there is, technically
speaking, no right of dover existing in
the territory, but the law of descent and
succession Is more liberal to the wife in
many instances than the common law
dover right would be. For instance: The
widow of an intestate is always entitled
for life to the homestead of her husband,
and to all personal property which is by
law exempt from execution. In addition
thereto she inherits for life one-third of
the remainder of the estate when he
leaves one child, and if more than one
child, then one-fourth of the remainder
of the estate goes to her for life. If he
leave no issue but either morther, father,
sister or brother, One-half of the estate
goes to the wife absolutely. And, more
over, in all cases where the exempted
property is insufficient to support the
family during the settlement of the es-
tate, an allowance is made out of the es-
tate for that purpose.
MARRIAGE
He says: Marriage should be made
| by law civil compact to be entered into
only by persons competent to contract,
and valid only as between the one man
and the one woman, and any other mar
riage under any circumstan ces, should be
declared void from the beginning" This
is the common law, which, in the absence
of statute on the subject, prevails in
Utah, and hence the enactment of such
legal status Of married persons. No
polygomOus marriage has ever been
claimed, even by the "Mormons" to be
valid in law. They have never been en-
forced or annulled by process of civil law,
as his language would imply, but simply
regarded as religious obligations. Thus,
it will be observed, that what the Gov
ernOr recommends in this matter already
exists.
| THE CHURCH
The Inter Ocean says: zone of the early
laws VI bllO OO1I1bO4y NCSGCO OCsAEOAO0S
and really unconstitutional powers in
the Mormon church" I presume that
the law here referred to is the act incOr-
porating the Church of Jesus Christ OF
latter day saints" and if so both you and
the Governor have entirely mistaken the
scope and meaning of that law. 1t did
not "Vest unconstitutional powers in the
Mormon church" nor did it make itShe
established church" It simply made the
church body corporate, and in defining
its powers expressly provided that "they
should not be inconsistent with, or re-
pugnant to, the constitution Of the Uni
ted States"
In 1862 Congress declared that so much
of this and other acts of the Legislature
as might establish, maintain, protect or
countenance the pratice of pOlygamy"
should be annulled; but, as no part Of
this act purported to either establish
maintain, protect or countenance" the
practice of pOlygamy, the whole act was
Incorporated in the compilation of 1876
but no part of it was then, or has been al
any time, re-enacted. The fact of its be-
ing included in the compilation did not
make it valid unless it was at the time
an existing law of the territory. The
courts have decided that the approval o.
the compilation did not amount to an en-
actment of any law in it, and the Gov
ernor must have been aware of this
; when he made the false assertion that i
had been re-enacted.