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

polygamy it has ever been our fortune to
see. 1t quotes this from the DEMOCRAT
If a 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:
Legitimate 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 Negs wants to know how this
looks beside the statement of the DEMO
GRAFT. 1t looks extremely bad, and it
looks worse the more it is considered.
That provision was for the benefit of lille
gitimate children and their mothers, and
the Negs, 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 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 as
compensation for their illegitimacy? So
imbued is the NeWs with yenality that it
cites Sec. 4, 7. IL of Chapter Xiv,
Laws of Utah, which has to do with the
Estates of Decedents, and is in the lam
guage following:
Every illegitimate 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, in whole or in part as the case may
be, in the same manner as if he had been
born in lawful wedlock. The issue of all
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
Mormon Legislature ever attempted to
make legal a 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 NeUS has cited,
prove that the Mormon polygamists
always intended to treat their polygamous
children as inferior in all respects to the
children of legal marriage, by only re-
terring to them in their laws as illegiti-
mate children2 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 thing,
but contented themselves to treat
their plural wives as mistresses
and their polygamous children as
Has Mormon Legislature
attempted to do anything for Mormon
children that it has not done
for the illegitimate child of the common
Rather has it not put
Mormon polygamous children in the
same category with the children of the
ibertine and the strumpet?
The Neaus has marshalled all the hosts
t can in favor of the record of Mormon
Legislatures on the question of polyga
nous children, and that record shows |
hat they have always deemed such
children base-born and illegitimate. All /
his may be comfort to the News and
is following, and if such it is, no one will
wish to deprive them of this creature
,omfort; and while it is not our purpose
o descend to the low personality and
Of the News, yet we cannot
out say that the reference to the fouled
hest was very unhappy in view of the
'ecord which the News presented of
Mormon legislation in regard to polyga-
nous children.
The NeWs takes exception to our praise
If the Edmunds law for its legitimization
II polygamous children, and says we find
ault with the Mormons for not doing this
anne thing; and then it makes its cita-
ions of the Utah statutes in regard to
Legitimate children. We would remind
he Ne,rs that the Edmunds law ex-
'ressly spoke of polygamous marriages
nd Mormon marriages, and specially
egitimatized the issue OF such marriages
nd that the Mormon Legislatures Is
lever once spoke Of such marriages. Z
+ the Mormon Legislatures had in view
children of Mormon parents
ghen they enacted the provisions for
which the Neacs has SO much praise, why
i'd they refer to such children specifically
he same as the Edmunds law did?
The Ne,cs would never have used the
rgument OF provision for illegitimate
hildren as defense of polygamy did it
AVE the soul to understand that,
hood name in man and woman, my dear
lord,
s the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse. steals trash; It is some
thing, nothing:
Twas mine, t is his, and has been slave to :
thousands;
'ut he that flches from me my good name
iobs me of that which not enriches him,
nd makes me poor indead