The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-29
WASHINGTON TOPICS.

| 1O1lJlCll arrests commune
WASHINGTON TOPICS.
Lively Tilt in the Senate on the PoIygamy
Business.
WASHINGTON, May 27.-Although
congress had absolutely forbidden the
monopoly, it had been permitted, and
the park was under control of a pri-
vate corporation. The matter then
went over and the Utah bill was
taken up.
Mr.. Brown said the Edmunds bill
was shameful violation of the con-
stitutIon. He contrasted what he
termed polygamy in New England
with poly9amy in Utah. The picture
he drew, he said was drawn
more in fun than in anger.
There had been over $1,000
divorce cases granted in New Eng
land IN the last twenty years, destroy
ing 27,OOO families and turning loose
$1,000 persons to marry again, all lille
gally except those who were divorced
for adultery or fornication. Assuming
that one third had been divorced for
adultery, it would leave $4,000 persons
divorced and married again who were
practicing poligamy in New England,
while the Utah commission acting un-
der the Edmond's bill, after having
reached Utah with test oath, could
G"d but 1900 who would not
swear they had never in their lives
beAn guilty of polygamy. Prostitution
was practiced in New England to an
alarming extent, and fraticide to the
extent that if continued would, in less
than a century, have depopulated
New England Of it's puritan stock. A
nation of mormons was impossible;
not so a nation of libertineS. In Mas
sachusetts, within the last 20 years,
the population had increased A per
cent. and marriages 62 per cent, while
divorces had increased 147 per cent
1t behoOved christians and patriots to.
ponder the consequences that must
follow from such state of things.
Society and the churches denounced
poligamy, and demanded its suppress
sion, and the churches were right; but
how then could they wink at illegal
divorces; how, without censure, see
their minister officiating, for petty
fee, at adulterous marriages? If min
listers and churches did their whole
sweep from our statute books wicked
and immoral divorce laws.
Mr.. Brown claimed no right to lee
ture either christian churches or their
ministers, but, as citizen and senator
he had felt it his duty to express his
convictions with regard to this
great evil, which was undermining
the purity of the family, the safety of
of nd hn Of hn fnfn
Many petsons are advocating putting
the mormons to the sword. 1t would
be an outrage on morality and decency
to attempt to slaughter a helpless
people, because they entertained views
on moral question to which we could
not subscribe. 1t was absurd to as
Sert that the mormonS were in rebell-
lonj no people could be In rebellion
who did not resist the laws by force.
The mormons at all times held them
selves ready to respond to legal pro-
cess. A people so conducting them
selves could not be in rebellion in any
legal sense.
Mr.. Brown turned some sarcastic
periods on what he turned the inter
meddling of New England, in other
peoples business, as in the affairs of
the southern states. The people did
not object so much to the practice in
what as to the names by which they
were called. The Utah commission
in prescribing test oath for the vo-
ters were careful to exclude only
those who cohabited with more than
one woman, while the gentle who
had one wife and one or more mis-
tresses, could take the oath without
difficulty. There was an immense
amount of cant and hypocracy in
the whole thing Mr.. Brown was
ready to sanction all constitutions
legislation which could be desired for
the suppression of polygamy in Utah,
and of illegal divorces, prostitution
and fGticide 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 intermeddling, or to suppress
| sect or denomination, however un-
popular it might be.
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-mak1ng. From the
malicious and malignant attack on
the people of New England, Mr.. HoaT
could only infer that mormon1sm was
more in accord with the senator's con-
victions than opposed to them. The
senator from Georgia (Brown) had
made a speech, the logical inference
I from which was better than lawful
marriage-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 reproach to her
Mr.. Hoar said was carefully writ
ten down by New England historians
There were sections of the country in
which that course was not pursued
If he (Hoar) cared to follow the style
of argument followed by the senator
from Georgia, (Brown) he coult
say something without even 1
reference to statistics, which would
be sufficiently disagreeable. With /;
desire to credit the portion Of country
from which that senator came with a
much propriety as he could, Mr.. Hoa
thought the presence of the larg
number of mulattoes remained to b
accounted for in the same way. Blu
he would not enter into this sort O
argument, this bill having specia
3 purpose applicable to Utah.
t The senate took up the bill to gran
/ Cinnabir & Clarksfork railway CON
pany right of way through a portion
of Yellowstone Park.
Mr.. Conger submitted an amend
ment to limit the company's contro
3 to one hundred feet in width, and Pre-
f hibiting the company from erecting
buildings, except for station pur
j poses.
: Mr.. Logan opposed the bill Ther
: was he said, disposition to gobbl
a everything in connection with th
! park by the railroad and hotel con
t panies. He (Logan) had found herd
d of cattle and horses in the park. !
/ department of the United States goV
a ernment had divided up into seve
parts the ten acres which the law a
S lowed to be rented to one compan