Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-07-02
MR.. BROWNS ATTITUDE.


person and related the story of his life.
In many respects it is touching, and there
is about it the tone of conviction. He
told, with touch of pathos, of his fathers
family, and how they had fought for their
country in Revolutionary times, and that
from them he had inherited his love of
liberty and religion. There was none of
the bombastic, sophistical pretense about
his remarks that characterized the speech
of Mr.. Musser upon a similar occasion.
Mr.. Musser made it the occasion for dis
playing his contempt of the Court and his
adroitness in the use and abuse of Ian
guage; studied contempt, for he had
submitted his document to friends before
he read it in court. and they, with sense
of decency and moderation, advised him
not to read it or present it to the Court.
How different was the manner and sub
a man of such sincere conviction as Mr..
Browns seems to be it is but natural that
he should deem the enforcement of
the Edmunds law a persecution, and in
his case it would so seem when compared
with the actions of some who are much
higher in authority in his church than
he. From his statement it appears that
he has entered into no polygamous mar
riage since the passage of the law of
1862, but he may be said to be among the
exceptions. What becomes of those
cases in which men have defied the law
not only of 1852 but of 1882? Can their
cases have any resemblance to that of Mr..
Brown? In such cases as Mr.. Browns
it may be possible that the Government
would grant an indulgence where there
guaranteed certainty that the polygamous
relationship would cease between those
who have broken the law, and broke it
knowingly, and that there would be no
formation of such relationships in the
future. But would not an indulgence to
such as Mr. Brown be license to others?
1t is this that needs to be guarded against
and must be prevented. Even an open
disavowal by the people of Utah of dis
continuance of their peculiar mar
riage system and a promise that
it would find no countenance or
sufferance in the future would be looked
upon with suspicion by the Government
and all others, owing to the high disre-
pute into which the people of Utah have
brought themselves through the shame
full conduct of Witnesses in prosecutions
for polygamy. And this does not arise
from the recal citrancy of witness, either.
The people of Utah and the Government
of the United States stand face
to face to-day contemplating the
Utah problem, which is the suppression
of polygamy and the vindication of the
law They contemplate it from different
standpoints and arrive at different con-
clusions. Those conclusions are antagon-
istic and hostile, and in no way tend to
solve the problem. The problem must
be solved; that solution must be in favor
of the people of Utah or in favor of the
Government. In whosoever's favor it is
solved, there must be surrender. This
fact is as plain as the fact that the prob
lem exists. The situation should be
looked at as it is, and not as either party
would have it. The people of Utah
believe that their mission is from God
and that they but do His will in prac-
ticing plural marriage. 1t may be said
that mans animal appetites prompt this
belief more than revelation, and this
may be; still the belief exists as stated
above. The people of the United States,
who are not of the Mormon persuasion,
do not believe that the Mormons have a
mission to perform on earth, and that as
part of that mission God revealed and
sanctioned the practice of polygamy or
plural marriage. On the contrary, the
people of the United States be-
lieve that plural marriage is diametri-
cally opposed to the will of God and the
doctrines and teachings of His Son Jesus.
In its essence, the claim of divine sane
ton and direct revelation is entitled to
as much respect and consideration when
made by one denomination as when made
by another. They are Gods chosen peo-
pie who believe themselves His chosen
people; He reveals Himself to those who
believe He does. Here, then, we have
two elements to consider-opposite re-
ligious beliefs, each claiming to be the
true belief, and the one entitled as mnch
as the other to make the claim. In dis
cussing the Utah problem and its solu-
ton the claims of divine sanction and
Gods will may be brushed aside as cut
ting no figure in the discussion, as the one
claim neutralizes the other. The ques-
ton, under these conditions, resolves it
self to this: The enforcement of valid
law passed by temporal government for
the preservation of the most essential
feature in all temporal governments--the
family. The family as constituted in this
Government, and all other civilized gov
ernments, may be wrong, but the people
of all these governments do not think so,
and the people of this Government alone
have had the family as constituted threat
ened, and to preserve it as they deem it
best for man as citizen or for man col
lectiyely as government, they have
passed laws for the suppression of the
danger which threatens them. Is it rea-
sonable to expect that they will make the
surrender to the danger they have sought
to guard against? Rather is it not
more reasonable to expect them to make
one determined and supreme effort to
crush out that danger when it has be-