Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1884-05-28

sentiment would soon sweep from our
statute-books the wicked and immo raj
divorce laws. Senator Brown claimed no
right to lecture either Christian churches
or their ministers, but as a citizen and a
Senator he felt it his duty to express his
convictions 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 persons
advocated putting the Mornons to the
sword. 1t would be an outrage upon
morality and decency to attempt TO
slaughter helpless people because they
entertained views on moral questions to
which we could not subscribe. 1t was abb
surd TO assert that the Mormons were in
rebellion. No people could be in rebel
lion who did not resist the laws by force.
The Mormons held themselves at all times
ready to respond to legal process. A peo-
pie so conducting themselves could not be
in rebellion in any legal sense. Senator
Brown turned some sarcastic periods in
what he termed the 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 prac-
tees in Utah as to the name by which
they were called. The Utah Commits
sion, in prescribing the test oath for
voters, were careful to exclude only those
who eohabited with more than one woman
in the marriage relation. The Gen.
tile 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. Senator Brown was
ready to sanction all constitutional legisla-
ton which could be devised for the sup
preston of polygamy in Utah, and of IL
itr1fin nd do
New England and elsewhere, but he was
not willing to violate the oath he had
taken to support the constitution to crafty
New England intermeddling, or to sup
press any sect or denomination, however
unpopular il might be.
Senator Hoar said he 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 speech-making. 1t was malice, and
malignant attack on the people of New
England. Senator Hoar could only infer
that Mormonism was more in accord with
that Senator's convictions than opposed to
them. The Senator from Georgia BROWN
had made speech, the logical inference Of
which was that polygamy was better than
single marriage, one husband and one
wife. Each country, and each section OF
each country, may have vices, but what
ever there was in New England that was a
reproach to her, he said it was carefully
written down by New England historians.
There were sections of the country where
this course was not pursued. If he (Hoar)
cared to follow the style of argu-
ment followed by the Senator from
Georgia (Brown) he could say
some things without even reference TO
statistics which would be sufficiently
disagreeable, with regard to that portion
OF the country from which that Senator
came, with as much propriety as he could.
Senator Hoar thought the presence of the
large number of mulattoes remained to be
accounted for in some way, but he would
not enter on this style of argument. This
was bill having a specific purpose appli-
cable to sect.
A motion to adjourn was made, to which
Senator Hoar objected, and the vote stood
80 yeas to 20 nays. The motion failed,
and motion was Immediately made to go
into executive session, resulting in an
other tie-29 yeas to 29 nays.
Senator Hoar then said he would not
insist on keeping the Senate, but expressed
the hope that tomorrow there would be
a long sitting in order to press the bill
| through.
Adjourned.