Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-21
Wherein Is the difference ?

The Ne,cs, in its issue OF Saturday
evening, attempts to distinguish between
the conduct of John Taylor and that OF
John Sharp relative to the Edmunds law,
to the disparagement OF the latter. To
quote: President TAYLOR, while assert
ing that he obeyed the law as he under
stood it, boldly asserted in addition that
he never would renounce his wives, but
would continue to acknowledge them in
that relation"
How did Taylor understand the law?
How did he obey it? He sent all his
alleged wives but one to live separate and
apart from hiLl. He said that his under
standing of the law from the first required
this, and he complied with it. That was
all the law required, as interpreted by
him or by the courts. To add that che
never would renounce his wives, but
would continue to acknowledge them in
that relation" is sheer buncombe and
humbug. John Taylor is at liberty to
| parade the streets of Salt Lake every day
carrying his banner bearing the inscrip-
| ton, ~ haze sir Wiues but lire With only
| one," if he chooses, and the only court
that would interfere with him for so
doing is the Police Court He knows it,
and the Ncps ought to know it, if it
doesn't. Ii he has kept good his declara-
tions as to his observance of the Edmunds
Law, he has no need to flee prosecution
under it, and venture to say that if his
conscience was as clear of guilt under the
law against polygamy as that against CO.
habiting he would not be fugitive from
| justice.
Has Bishop Sharp said he would re-
nounce his wives or refuse to acknowl-
edge them or his children? On the con-
trary, having first acknowledged his
amenability to the laws of the country, he
explicitly and expressly avows his mari.
tai and parental relationship.
The NeUs is dishonest in its dealing
with either John Taylor on the one hand
or Mr.. Arnold and Bishop Sharp on the
other. Ii Taylor is justified in ceasing tc
live with more than one woman as wife
in obedience to the law, so are Arnold
and Sharp. To justify and excuse in
Taylor that course of conduct which il
Arnold and Sharp is condemned ant
reprobated, is not only unjust and dis
honest, but if prompted by the apparent
motive of flattering the most powerful, il
sneaking hypocrisy.
But this theory doesn't cover the entire
case. Cannon and Musser, SO far al
matters OF conscience are concerned
could just as we'll have pledged them
selves to live apart from all wives bu
one, and stand at large as not. They
went to the Penitentiary from policy anG
not principle, to make capital for them
selves and other Church leaders. They
went in obedience to counsel (it is to be
presumed), to reserve stock-in-trade tc
keep good the quarrel between Nor
mons" and the rest OF the world TO keep
intact Mormon crankiness. John Taylo
having secured his own safety by obedi
ence to the laws, was perfectly willing
by proxy, to suffer martyrdom in th'
persons OF others however high, numerous
or beloved. The Church, thereby, wa
prosecuted, made compact and strong
Even the Ne,rs isn't 80 blind as no
to know that if Taylor had beer
genuine and true to any high prin
ciple. been gold instead OF tinsel
he could, by q manly avowa
OF higher law, and by manly defens,
of it, in court, as we'll as elsewhere, hav,
done much to redeem the creed and sys
teui lToHl coHtcnlpt. Ilau He even iOs
life, in such defense of a ,rorthy cause
) his fate would be enviable. Rut thu
cause is unworthy the sacrifice OF any
man, and this man is not for sacrifice il
any cause.
Doubtless, noble causes ennoble thei
) advocates and adherents, and ignoblt
causes have an opposite effect Ii there
is in this system OF Mormonism, singh
feature that is both new and valuable, i
ought to be clearly pointed out, so it cal
be recognized. T.