Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-04-22
MR.. PENRosE ON THE PRESIDENT


peared an article by Mr.. Charles w Pen
rose, the editor of that paper, which was
copied from the MillennidI Star, the organ
of the Mormon church in Europe. In
this article Mr.. Penrose treats at length
of the remarks which the President
made in his inaugural address on the
Utah question. To any one who read the
inaugural of President Cleveland and who
now reads Mr.. Penrose's article and who
knows anything whatever of affairs in
Utah and the question that is uppermost
in the minds of all classes, within and
without Utah, whenever the least refer
ence is made to the condition of things
here, the views which Mr. Penrose pre-
sents as TO the meaning of the Presi-
dent on our Utah problem must
be most astonishing, and will call
for his wonder if not his admiration.
Surely the English climate must in some
peculiar and unknown (perhaps unknow-
able) manner affect Mr.. Penrose's powers
of discernment; in fact, affect them so
much that their distortion has been trans
mitted to his article. If this exposition
of the views of the inaugural address on
the question of the suppression of polyg-
amy in the Territories is just one, then
there is no other living man who has
been blest with so keen a sight as Mr..
Penrose. In truth, if the writer of the
Star has had the true insight into the
Presidents meaning, the President should
be informed OF it Immediately, for he is
certainly acting on view of his meaning
entirely different from that which is put
forth in the Star.
The question arises in the mind
whether Mr.. Penrose is quite honest with
himself and those for whom he wrote
when he says that at will be seen that
President Cleveland has touched upon
this important subject with great care
and delicacy. He offers no personal opin-
ion, one way or another. x He
simply voices the public conscience. This
he declares demands the suppression oi
polygamy. That is to say, the polygamy
which is destructive of family relations
and offensive to the moral sense of the
civilized world -? Is it not the intention
of these sentences to convey to the ad-
herents of the church in Europe the idea
that President Cleveland is not opposed
to polygamy as it exists in Utah under a
religious sanction, but that he merely
mentioned it in response to the deman DIS
of the people whose conscience called for
its suppression? Is it perfectly true,
true beyond the possibility OF a doubt,
that "the Latter-day Saints are fully
in accord with the public senti-
ment or conscience which desires
the repression of that form of polygamy
which is destructive of family relations?'
Is there not somewhat of a refined casuis- |
try and jesuitical frankness in the above |
Interpretation of President Clevelands |
views? What impression is sought to be
conveyed when Mr.. Penrose writes as
follows: " Against both forms of illegiti-
mate polygamy, the people of Utah and
the Latter-day Saints generally will join
with President Cleveland, or with that
public conscience which he expresses in
proper measures for its re-
pression?" Is it any other than that, on
the question of polygamy in Utah, the
polygamy which Mr.. Penrose advocates,
President Cleveland and the people of
Utah are in accord, and that the Presi-
dent, like the people here, thinks that it
is just what is going to save mankind
and cure the evils with which
society is afflicted? Mr.. Penrose knows
as well as Cleveland himself, that Cleve-
land meant the suppression of polygamy
as taught, advocated and practiced by the
Latter-day Saints, and nothing else. He
meant that and he is doing that, and for
Mr.. Penrose 10 undertake to say that he
meant something else is for Mr.. Penrose
10 undertake to make white seem black
and to reverse the order of the universe
md make the night become the day. 1t !
$ for Mr.. Penrose to undertake to make .
stalk forth as truth, and to de- >
,eive those whom he assumes to en- ,
ighten.
The best thing which Mr.. Penrose finds
o support his arguments in favor of
'olygamy is to show how bad the world !,
3, and calls the social evils of society =
''promiscuous polygamy," while the II
World calls the sins of sexual passion
n evil and regrets it. 1t is
favorite argument with such as Mr..
'enrose to say that polygamy will exist \
n one form or another everywhere.
hereby justifying themselves by citing
he practices of those who are universally
bhorred by decent men and women. b
hey justify on the grounds of brutality, p
nd not on the grounds of morality. But q q
cry recently we heard lady who had a
lised polygamic family say that when st
he listened to or read some of the argu- II
rents put forth in favor of plural marri- G,
ge by those who claimed to be doing
-od's will, it made her blush to think of az
lem, as they placed man and woman on "a "a
he level of the brutes. The polygamic n, ~
7stem is bad, but the natural argu- st
lents which are adduced in support of re
are worse yet, as they show al
'wer intellect than moral sense. Is pf II
lere any necessity of comparing what tr
lany sincerely believe to be from God to lii
hat they themselves hold to be a crime ls IS
IL Ilot 10 insult tnose motners who c.: