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


The London Standard of the 2Sth ult.
in commenting upon the late Epistle o.
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
mons to set aside the women who have, for
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
1873, the anti-polygamy law of 1852 was
passed upon by the Supreme Court of
the United States in the Reynolds case,
(9S q. S. Reports) and was declared valid.
Of eminent lawyers as to the constitu-
tlonality of the anti-polygamy law OF
1862, and the people of Utah resolved the
doubt in their favor; after 1873 all doubt
was put at rest. What did the people of
Utah do? Did they acquiesce in the de-
cision of the Supreme Court, and cease
to form any more polygamous marriages?
No; 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
crime under the name of unlawful CO.
habitation. But it did more; it legiti-
matized all polygamous children born up
to the Both day of December, 1882. This
is 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.
If 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
MON polygamous wives have been true
and faithful wives, and their children |
have been, in all that nature
gives, the equals of the children |
OF the legal wives, but what of
the Mormon polygamous men who
have had it in their power to give to their
wives and children a legal
recognition and legal rights, yet never
once attempted it? And when it has
suited some of these same Mormon DO
who to-day are complaining so
much about persecution, to invoke the
law to compass their purposes and iniure
q polygamous child, they have not hesi-
lated for moment to call to their aid the
avs of this terribly wicked land.
The men in Utah who have brought
most wrong and injustice upon faithful
wives and innocent children have been
he polygamists; and if for no other rea-
ION than this, it is the duty of the Gov
to suppress polygamy that polyg- ;
lmists may be deprived of the power to
work further harm and injury. The ]
sorrow which will result from forced
llscontlnuation of polygamy will be t
'reat, but not so great as the sorrow it t
las already wrought If the Mormon
'eople had honestly accepted the Ed a
nunds Act, and met it in the spirit in t
which it legitimatized the polygamous r
ffsprlng of the Mormons, Utah would Y
ot have been in the condition she is TO- v
ay; and it is probable that had there p
cen an honest discrimination of polvga-
nous marriages from the date of that
-ct, the polygamous marriages then +.
'rmed would have been allowed to
emain. In the war against polygamy. Y
ne concessions thus far have been made k
Y the Government, and it is time that . .
he people of Utah conceded something. W