Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-05-04
FOLLOWING SUIT.

that this "abject spectacle" arose from
that "valor of another kind that is needed
to enable a man to stand by his honest
convictions" of which the Ne1CS spoke in
commenting upon Mr.. Arnold's case, for
it pronounced Mr. Arnold courageous so
far as physical danger is concerned.
We must agree with the NeUS in its
censure OF Mr.. Spencer's conduct to his
wife whom he paid as hired girl. 1t is
not noble position for husband to take,
even when obeying the law, and if it was
desirable to obey the law and discontinue
to associate with her as a plural wife, it
would have been far better to have al
lowed her what support Mr.. Spencer could
afford, but not to make OF her a menial.
But Mr.. Spencer did in obedience to the
law what many do out of Difference to
the difference of human nature-cast off
one wife, or more as the case may be, to
pay respect to the law or pay court at the
feet of a favorite. The very nature OF
polygamy makes men have less respect
for women than they do in mOnogamy,
from the simple fact that power begets con-
tempt for those over whom it is exercised,
and no woman can stand the equal OF her
husband when that man has more
wives than one. In polygamy a man
does not deem his wife his companion, but
a companion of whom he has more than
one. Every man who has more wives
than one involuntarily entertains an opin-
ion of his own superiority over the OPP
posite sex, and he does not have for
woman that chivalric respect and high
consideration which is the outgrowth of
the highest type of man and woman in
their relation of husband and wife, father
and mother 1t could not be otherwise;
for where there is divided affection,
which must be in polygamy, there is
divided respect. This is placing things in
their best light, and makes no mention of
those cases where there is not even
divided affection.
The NecS goes further yet, and says
that che renounced his sacred and relig-
ious obligation to recognize as wives those
whom he covenanted to retain in that ca
pacity for time and all eternity" Mr..
Spencer did this, but let us see what Mr.. |
Spencer said. Here it is, in part only: !
"When the Edmunds law was known to |
have become law in this Territory, | and |
my wives made a covenant to obey the |
Edmunds law to the best of our knowl-
edge" We quote from the Ne,cs' own
report. There is much more of the same.
but this will suffice. For this avowal
MIR. Spencer is said to have renounced a
sacred and religious obligation; but he
has only said in court, after pleading
guilty, what Mr.. Taylor, the President of
the Mormon Church, said to ex-Attorney-
General Pierrepont in the Gardo House.
MIR. Taylor said:
Mr.. Pierrepont, permit me to introduce you
TO my sister, who is my hOusekeeper. 1t is not
lawful Tor US to have wives now. And when
the EdInundS law was passed looked carefully
over the document, and saw that if | was to
continue to live in the same house with nv
wives that | should render myself liable to that
law. | desired to place myself in
obedience or in As close proximity as practicable
10 the law, and thought / would wait and see
what the result would be; and that if the nation
can stand these things / can or we can These
are my feelings. Men and nations and legisla-
tors often act foOlishly and do things that are
uhwlse, and 1t is not proper that nation should
lew men. Therefore have sought to place nv
seii In accord with that law / said to nv wives:
we are living in this building together We
were quite comfortably situated and we MIGHT !
SO have continued, but said to them that under
me circumstances, it will be better for me or
1r you TO leave this place; you can take your
cholce They had their homes down here.
winch they now inhabit, which were quite
comfortable So l said to them YOU can 90
mere, and will stay here, or you can stay at the
iardo House and will go there or somewhere
elSe, for l wish to conform to this Edmunds
aw as much as can"
The above extract is from a discourse
oy President Taylor, delivered in the
tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday, Feb.
|, 1885, and published in the Necs of
Feb. IA, 1885.
1t is difficult to see wherein the posi-
ions OF MIR. Taylor and Mr.. Spencer
hiier, save that one told what he had
lone in open meeting and the other in
pen court. VIII the NeWS undertake to !
ay that MIR. Taylor has renowned his
acred and religious obligation" by de-
larlng that he has endeavored to conform
the Edmunds law? Mr.. Angus Can
on also says that he did the same
ct Arnold, Spencer and Arid have
OF been very highly praised for
olng under compulsion what the two
aiding men of the Mormon Church de-
are that they did voluntarily. PERHAPS
le sin OF these three last named men is -
following example and not counsel. y
hatever may be their sin or their
ents, they have done what very. very =,
any VIII yet do-which is merely to Y
eld obedience to the law when the law
rs Its grip upon them. If anv one
'ubts this, let him but wait A short
hile and evidence in abundance will ba
mlshed that we are right in what we
y. If conscience makes towards Of
en-, so does the certainty of punishment
r breaking the law. O.,
JUDGE ZANE must be in terrible con-
hon; and if what the Herald said Of