Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-25
AN APOLOGY FOR CRIME.

for the crime OF polygamy. The apology
Of the News is the worst arraignment OF
polygamy it has ever been our fortune to
see. 1t quotes this from the DEMOCRAT:
If polygamist in Utah died intestate, all
his polygamous wives and children had no
rights whatever in his estate, and could get
no standing in court.
That is true Notwithstanding the lame
attempt of the News to make it appear
otherwise. 1t quotes from an old statute
OF 1852 in which the word family is
used, and says that the word family might
not be open to dispute, and the children
OF plural wives called illegitimate by
claimants to the estate, the same statute
contained the following provision:
Illegitimate children and their mothers
inherit in like manner from the father,
whether acknowledged by him or not, pro-
vided it shall be made to appear to the sat
isfaction of the court that he was the father
of such illegitimate child or children.
The NeCs wants to know how this
looks beside the statement Of the Demo-
cRAT. 1t looks extremely bad, and it
That provision was for the benefit of ile-
gitimate children and their mothers, and
the Ne,ys, the official organ of the Nor
mon church, cites this provision to show
in what esteem and consideration Nor
mon Legislature, composed mainly OF po-
lygamists, held plural wives and their
offspring Is it not a beautiful tribute to
divine system of marriage to place it
on the level OF illicit love and to do to the
offspring OF such love the meagre justice
of giving them a pittance of property rs II
compensation for their illegitimacy? So
imbued is the Ne'gs with venality that it
cites Sec. 4, T. II of Chapter XLIV.,
Laws OF Utah, which has to do with the
Estates of Decedents, and is in the Ian
guage following:
Every ilegitimate child is an heir of the
person who acknowledges himself to be the
father of such child; and in all cases is an
heir of his mother, and inherits his or her
estate, i'll whole or in part as the case may
be, in the same manner as If he had been
born in lawful wedlook The issue of all
marriages null i'll law, or dissolved by di-
vorce, are legitimate.
If polygamist should not acknowledge
his children, where would the rights OF
such children be under this provision?
And, again, the rights which this sec
ton gives to illegitimate children under
certain circumstances are offered as an
excuse and justification for polygamy. Has
I ytpln tfa, tod n,
make legal polygamous marriage, and
make the issue OF such marriage the equal
in all respects of the issue OF legal mar
riage? DO not the very provisions OF the
laws OF Utah which the News has cited,
prove that the Mormon polygamists
always intended to treat their polygamous
children as inferior in all respects to the
children of n legal marriage, by only re-
ierring to them in their laws as illegiti-
mate children? Would it not have been
a very easy thing for the Mormon Legis-
lature to have said that polygamous wives
and their children shall have the same
rights and standing before the law that
the legal wife of the common law has ?
The Mormon. Legislatures OF Utah never
once attempted to do such Il thing,
but contented themselves to treat
their plural wives as mistresses
and their polygamous children as
illegitimate. Has Mormon Legislature
attempted to do anything for Mormon
polygamous children that it has not done
for the illegitimate child of the common
street-walker? Rather has it not put
Mormon polygamous children in the
same category with the children OF the
libertine and the strumpet?
The News has marshalled all the hosts
it can in favor OF the record OF Mormon
Legislatures on the question of polyga-
nous children, and that record shows
that they have always deemed such
children base-born and illegitimate. All
this may be comfort to the News and
its following, and if such it is, no one will
wish to deprive them OF this creature
comfort; and while it is not our purpose
to descend to the low personality and
insinuation OF the News, yet we cannot
but say that the reference to the fouled
nest was very unhappy in view OF the
record which the News presented OF
Mormon legislation in regard to poyga-
nous children.
The Ne,cs takes exception to our praise
of the Edmunds law for its legitimization
of polygamous children, and says we find
fault with the Mormons for not doing this
same thing; and then it makes its cita.
tons of the Utah statutes in regard to
illegitimate children. We would remind
the News that the Edmunds law ex.
pressly spoke OF polygamous marriages
and Mormon marriages, and specially
legitimatized the issue of such marriages
and that the Mormon Legislatures
never once spoke of such marriages
If the Mormon Legislatures had in view
polyganous children of Mormon parents
when they enacted the provisions fol
which the Nelos has SO much praise, why
did they refer to such children specifically
the same as the Edmunds law did?
The Ne,os would never have used the
argument OF provision for illegitimatc
children as n defense of polygamy did il
have the soul to understand that,
Good name in man and woman, my deal
lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
| Who steals my purse, steals trash: u il some