Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1884-06-06
DIVORCE AND POLYGAMy

lhere has been something Of a sepsatio,
~ .'e senate over the debate on the Utal
Dill. A Democratic Senator-Senator Brown
-oranched OIL from the question at issue in
10 rafting attack upon what he terme,
the polYgamy of New England, that +
It's loose diVorce laws and produced com
parlson between Utah and New EprIan,
INTENDED TO be unfavorabe to the latter. He
showed, by statistics, that there had bier
over 2',ooo divorces granted in New Eng
land within the last 90 years. destrov,nr ~
oUo families and turning loose ga 900 person.
10 marry again, all illegally, excep
thosc who were divorced for adultery As
suming thst one-third OF them had bee,
divorced Tor adultery, it would leave &c mn
persons divorced AMI married again wb3
were practising polygamy in New England
while the Utah commission, acting undor
inc Edmunds bill, after having scarcbed
otah with the test oath, could find but % mn
n4eu anu women who would not swear tina,
'neY mad never in their lives been guilty Of
polygamy
"enaVor Brown asserted that prostitution
was increasing in New England to an er,er,
winch would soon dcpopuate this section Of
INC country OF its puritan stock-and all or
Lcaiiy all, due to the shameful looseness of
our divorce laws. In Massachusetts for IN
stance within the last 20 years popula,io,
'' 'n0ieascu "a per cent and marriage SO
per cent while divorces have increased 147
per cent. Senator Brown thought that If
ministers and churches did their dutv nnh
Tic sentiment would soon sweep from our
STATUTE DOCKS such wicked and immoral
divorce laws as now stand upon them.
lhese facts and figures are undeniable
enough ana arc very good as arguments in
'neir proper place and time, but az decoy to
diVert the attention of the Senate from ,bo
Utah bill, they are beneath contemn,
senator lloar's reply to MIR. Browns
sIeech struck the nail squarely on the head
Mr' hoar said he had heard enough of Mr..
broWn's speech to comprehend lis character
Dnt not Its motive. 1t did not seem ncssib,e
mat That Senator had taken SO much pains
us DIS speech indicated, for the mere purnose
OF making malicious and malignant a,
TACK on the people of New England. Mr.
lloar could only infer that Mornonisr yos
more in accord with that Senator's convic-
lions than opposed to them. Each countrv
and each section of each country nav have
wees; but whatever there was in New Eng
land That was reproach to her, Mr.. Hoar
said it was carefully written down by Now
England historians. There were sections of
country in which this course was not MIR.
sued. IT he (Mr. Hoar) cared to follow the
style OF argument followed by the Sepotor
from Georgia (Alr Brown he could saw
some things without even reference to stat
isllcs which would be sufficiently disagree
able.
New Engand's divorce law are certainly
bad enough, but Utah's monstrous curse of
Mormonism is infinitely worse The matter
is not to be looked upon as choice between
evils. AS the Boston Adoerttser pertinentlv
says;
Inc question as presented to Congress Ia
not enc OF morals, religion or sentiment, but
one OF law. The right or wrong of poyg.
amy isnot now in issue. Years ago Congress
made the practice a crime. The one point
now to be granted is the enforcement OF re-
spect for the statutes of the general govern
ment. IL is the old contest of notification
against national law, and the fact that the
nulllters are inhabitants of territory does
not prevent the Southern politicians from
,syympathizing with their bloodless rebellion.
lhis fact, however, does not blind the eyes G