Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-21
Wherein IL the Difference, /,

The Nc,cs, in its issue OF Saturday
evening, attempts to distinguish between
the conduct OF John Taylor and that Of
John Sharp relative to the Edmunds law,
TO the disparagement OF the latter. To
quote: president Tavlor, while assert
ing that he obeyed the law as he under
stood it, boldly asserted in addition that
he never would renounce his wives, but
would continue to acknowledge them in
that relation"
How did Taylor understand the law?
How did he obey it? He sent all his
alleged wives but one to live separate and
apart from him. He said that his under
standing OF the law from the first required
this, and he complied with it, That was
all the law required, as interpreted by
him or by the courts. To add that che
never would renounce his wives, but
would continue to acknowledge them In
that relation" is sheer buncombe and
humbug. John Taylor is at liberty to
parade the streets OF Salt Lake every day
carrying his banner bearing the inscrip.
ton, "I hare sir wires but live with only
ons," il he chooses, and the only court
that would interfere with him for so
doing is the Police Court. He knows it,
and the Nc,cs ought to know it, ii il
doesn't. Ii he has kept good his deciaru-
tions as TO his observance OF the Edmunds
Law, he has no need to fee prosecution
under it, and | venture to say that if his
conscience was as clear OF guilt under the
law against polygamy rs that against co.
habiting he would not be fugitive from
justice.
Has Bishop Sharp said he would re-
nounce his wives or refuse to acknowl-
edge them or his children? On the con-
trary, having first acknowledged his
amenability to the laws OF the country, he
explicitly and expressly avows his mari
tai and parental relationship.
The Neus is dishonest in it's dealing
with either John Taylor on the one hand,
or Mr.. Arnold and Bishop Sharp on the
other. II Taylor is justified in ceasing to
live with more than one woman as wife
in obedience TO the law, 80 are Arnold
and Sharp. To justify and excuse in
Taylor that course Of conduct which is
Arnold and Sharp is condemned and
reprobated, is not only unjust and dis
honest, but ii prompted by the apparent
motive of flattering the most powerful, is
sneaking hypocrisy.
But this theory doesn't cover the entire
case. Cannon and Musser, so far as
matters OF conscience are concerned,
could just as well have pledged them
selves to live apart from all wives but
one, and stand at large as not. They
went to the Pententiary from policy and
not principle, to make capital for them
selves and other Church leaders. They
went in obedience to counsel lit is to be
presumed), to reserve stock-in-trade to
keep good the quarrel between "Mor.
mons" and the rest of the world to keep
intact Mormon crankiness. John Taylor
having secured his own safety by obedi-
ence TO the laws, was perfectly willing,
by proxy, to suffer martyrdom in the
persons of others however high, numerous
or beloved. The Church, thereby, was
prosecuted, made compact and strong.
Even the INe,Us isn't so blind as not
to know that if Taylor had been
genuine and true to any high prin-
ciplc, been gold instead OF tinsel,
he could, by manly avowal
Of a higher law, and by manly defense
Of it, in court, Ms well as elsewhere, have
done much to redeem the creed and sys-
tenn from contempt. Had he even lost
life, in such defense OF porthy cause,
his fate would be enviable. Rut the
cause is unworthy the sacrifice OF any
man, and this man is not for sacrifice in
any cause.
Doubtless, noble causes ennoble their
advocates and adherents, and ignoblc
causes have an opposite effect. Ii there
is in this system OF Mormonism, single
feature that is both new and valuable, it
ought to be clearly pointed out, so ii can
be recognized T.