The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-11
BISHOP CLAWSON In COURT.
How One of the Leaders of the Mormon
Church Received His Sentence.
Polygamist Leader, and the Response of
Judge Zane Thereto.
Salt Lake tUtah) Herald. Sept. 20.

had been disposed of, Mr.. Hardness announced
that Mr.. Clawson desired to change his plea of
not guilty, entered some time ago, and the clerk
asking him to arise and make his plea. Bishop
C,awson did so, and responded in a firm voice,
Guilty"
The Court-You understand. I suppose, what
the indictment is; you have pleaded to ita
Mr.. Clawson-Yes, sir.
The Court-Have you anything to say further
before the judgment is pronounceda
Mr.. Clawson-Yes, sir.
The Bishop then arose. and in loud, clear
tone he said:
with your Honor's permission would like
to say few words in regard to this matter.
am arraigned before this court to answer to the
charge of a misdemeanor. in this: That have
been living in polygamy, and that have been
living with those that I have claimed and do
claim to be my wives
II have been IN the church, or, rather, have
been identified with the Church of Latter Day
Saints for forty-6ve years, and for thirty years
and over have lived in my present marriage
relations When entered those relations be-
lieved was doing just exactly what I ought to
do. | believed that in doing that was doing
something in this life that IN the life to come
would be for my benefit. l have endeavored
through this life, up to the present time to live
w
| married these, my wives, they were
young and l was young. They be-
lieved the same thing that I did. We
made the most solemn covenants that men
or women can make In regard to this marriage,
and and they have endeavored up to the pres
emit time to live those covenants. Now they are
along in years; streaks of gray show in their
hair; they have families of children that have
grown up and married, and have children, and
now, at this time, at my age and at their age,
T. fiac o,d vast
women off and leave them ard my children, and
say that will have more to do with them
your Honor, it is thing that seems impossi
Bile for me to say. When l believe as I have
believed, and L say now, that what believed
thirty years ago and over, l believe to-day just
as did then; and believe that were I to say
that will cast them off, all have done in all
these years has gone for nothing. 1t is better,
your Honor. far better. for me to 60 to prison.
if that is the decision of your Honor Again, let
that be one reason why plead guilty to this in
dictment, and why am now standing before this
court.
Another reason is: How is this thing? How
is it looked att What is there in its If make
any promises so far as regards the future l am
ostracised. l am looked down upon; / am dis
honored in this community among my brethren
those that respect and honor and among all
honorable men. There is not man. 1 believe,
in this courtroom who has occupied the position
have but what, were he to stand in my place
to-day, would do just as say that l feel to do
to-day CAP bear the scorn and the indignation
and the feelings that these my wives, would
cast upon me, after all these years, if | say that
will turn them away and have no more to do
with them; and can l bear what my children
would say. and how my children would feel in
regard to this matter! | say no. 1t is only a
few years that have to i've and had better do
something else than 60 back on what have said
believe is true. To me there are only two
courses. One is prison and honor, the other is
liberty and dishonor. Your honor, have done"
Judge Zane listened with close attention, and
having dispatched a baiiff for Blackstone's
Commentaries, he adjusted his spectacles and
said:
''Mr. Clawson. it becomes the duty of the
court now to pronounce the sentence of the law
against you. You state, as q reason for your
present course, that you formed tho relations
for which you are row to be punished thirty
years ago, and that you then believed it was
right. mans beliefs do not justify willful
violation of the law. 1t appears to be the
opinion of at least some of the members Of the
sect to which you belong that polygamy was law
full previous to the Edmunds law and the law of
States anywhere when polvgamy was lawful
Probably the greatest commentator upon the
common law who has ever lived more than a
hundred years ago, in commenting upon the
common law, (which has been in force in
this Territory since it has been &C
CURED by the United States>, after re-
ferring to the disabilities which prevent
the contract of legal marriage, used this
language: The first of these ega! disabilities is
prior marriage. or having another husband or
wife living, in which case, besides the penalties
consequent upon it as felony, the second mar
riage is to all intents and purposes void poiyg-
amy being condemned both by the law of the
New Testament and the policy of all prudent
states, especially in these northern climates
and then refers to remark of Justinian con-
corning polygamy. Il Blackstone's Common
taries, Page 435
'And it is believed that under the laws of
Mexico, before this Territory was even acquired
by the United States. polygamy was not recog-
nized. 1t was unlawful, and at the time that
you state you formed these relations the law of
the land prevented you from doing it. When
you formed them they were utterly void, as if
they had never been contracted. The second
wife, In the eye OF the law, was nothing more
than concubine, and the children born of those
relations were bastards. The law condemned it,
and principle has condemned it in the United
States.
THE fact that you claim it to be your religion
land infer that you think because that is so
you ought not to be punished) is no defense
The law does not attempt to regulate the in
ternal relations of man, SO to speak-that is to
say, his faith. his beliefs his feelings He can
exercise his faith, 9 can exercise his belief but
when that belief and those feelings become ex-
ternal and attack the institutions upon which
society rests. the law takes hold of it and it is
not protected. A man may believe and worship
as he pleases. Religion, that part of it, at least
that the law protects, is internal It consists of
faith, feeling and worship. When a man. how
ever, claims that the formation of relations such
as you profess to believe in-when he forms such
relations as you have formed-then the law acts
upon it. 1t does not allow the institutions upon
which society rests to be attacked by religion
any more than by any other means. So that that's
no defense. The trainers of the Constitution so
understood it; the Supreme Court of the United
States has so interpreted it, and the Congress of
the United States, in the law which you have
violated has so interpreted it, and yo ur faith is
no justification for your unlawful acts.
The American people and the whole civilized
world. with the exception Of this sect and prob
ably some other few-such as free-love organiza-
tons-believe in the homogeneous marriage, and
repudiate the polygamous marriage, and repu-
date polyandry-the marriage If one wife to a
number of husbands
Besides. this institution which you profess to