Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-20

The London Standard of the 18th ult.,
in commenting upon the late Epistle OF
Mr.. Taylor and Cannon, among other
things says
The Mormons went out into the wilder
ness thousands of miles away from civiliza-
ton, in order to practice their religion un-
molested. The people of the United States
have come to them; and, although the latter
would be perfectly justified in saying that no
more polygamous marriages shall take place,
they are not justified in asking the Nor
many years. been faithful wives, and the
mothers of their children; or what is worse,
to continue to live them, while openly ac-
knowledging them to be unmarried.
The Standard misapprehends the case.
So early as 1862, the Congress of the
United States passed law forbidding
the practice of polygomy, but the people
of Utah absolutely ignored that law. In
1878, the anti-polygamy law of 1862 was
passed upon by the Supreme Court of
the United States in the Reynolds case,
(9S U. s. Reports) and was declared valid.
There had been much doubt in the minds
of eminent lawyers rs to the constitu-
1862, and the people of Utah resolved the
doubt in their favor; after 1878 all doubt
was put at rest. What did the people of
Utah do? Did they acquiesce in the de-
csion OF the Supreme Court, and cease
to form any more polygamous marriages?
Mo- they continued to form polygamous
marriages, and rear polygamous families.
In 1882, the Congress Of the United States
passed another anti-polygamy law-the
Edmunds law. This law differed from
the law of 1862 in two important particu-
lars. 1t made the continuation of
the polygamous marriage relation n
crime under the name OF unlawful CO.
habitation. But it did more; it legiti-
matized all polygamous children born up
to the 30th day of December, 1882. This
is a thing which the Mormon people have
never done or attempted to do, although
the Mormon people have always had alb
solute control OF the Legislature OF Utah.
Ii 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 The Nor.
nom polygamous wives have been true
and faithful wives, and their children
have been, in all that nature
gives, the equals of the children
oil the legal wives, but what of
the Mormon polygamous men who
have had it in their power to give to their
polygamons wives and children legal
recognition and legal rights, yet never
once attempted it? And when it has
Z suited some OF these same Mormon po-
lygamists, who to-day are complaining so
much about persecution, to invoke the
law to compass their purposes and injure
Il polygamous child, they have not hesi-
tated for a moment to call to their aid the
laws of this terribly wicked land.
The men in Utah who have brought
most wrong and injustice upon faithful
wives and innocent children have been
the polygamists; and ii for no other rea-
son than this, it is the duty OF the Gov
ernment to suppress polygamy that polyg-
amists may be deprived of the power to
work further harm and injury. The
sorrow which will result from a forced
discrimination of polygamy will be
great, but not so great as the sorrow it
has already wrought. Ii the Mormon
people had honestly accepted the Ed
munds Act, and met it in the spirit in
which it legitimatized the polygamous
offspring OF the Mormons, Utah would
not have been in the condition she is to-
day; and it is probable that had there
been an honest discrimination OF rolyga-
nous marriages from the date of that
Act, the polygamous marriages then
formed would have been allowed to
remain. In the war against polygamy,
the concessions thus lar have been made
by the Government, and it is time that
the people of Utah conceded something