Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-06-30
NO CESSATION.

The people of Utah have even Yainly
fattered themselves that all efforts of the
Government to suppress polygamy were
tentative and could but result in failure
In this opinion they have been partially
justified, as all efforts heretofore to vim
dicate the law have been spasmodic, and
comparatively few persons have been in
any danger of prosecution. To-day it is
entirely different, and continued effort
of some nine months to enforce the laws
has resulted in throwing con-
sternation into the ranks of those
who have been wont to laugh
to scorn all endeavors to punish infrac-
tions of the laws. 1t was hoped that
with the advent to power of the Demo
cratic party there would be at least par
tial cessation of prosecutions for polyg-
amy and unlawful cohabitation, but such
hopes have been disappointed. The peo-
pie of Utah have always claimed
allegiance to the Democratic, and they
believed that this claim would shield
them from prosecution, but it has not
done it. Was it not unreasonable for
the people of Utah to expect
any such action on the part of
the Democrats? The Democrats differ
from the Republicans essentially on many
things and in methods, but can any party
differ about law that has been passed
by Congress, and that law has been
passed upon by the Supreme Court and
declared valid? So filled were the peo-
pie of this Territory wi tn this idea that
the Democrats would continue to indulge
them in Elusive hopes of special protec-
ton, that they held mass meetings
throughout the Territory and sent spe-
cial delegation to Washington to present
to President Cleveland their Declaration
Of Grievances and Protest. When it
was presented, it may very properly
be said to have been still born,
and there has been no revivifcation
When President Cleveland said in his In
augural Address that polygamy in the
Territories "must and shall be
repressed," the people gave it no
heed, but deemed those words
idle talk to appease the popular preju-
dice. They treated those words as many
treated President Cleveland's words on
civil-service-reform, and thought them
but mere protest without sincerity or
meaning. What were the Honorable John
T. Caine, Apostle Taylor and Bishop
Cannon told by the President when they
waited upon him with the Declaration
and Protest?
"The President listened courteously and
attentively to the address, and upon its con-
clusion said: We'll, gentlemen, so far of
course as the Edmunds law is concerned,
had nothing to do with that. OF course, it
it my duty to see that it is enforced as well
as all other laws. You are entitled to fair
consideration and TO have the law impair
tally administered as you ask, and so far as
any appointments which / shall make are
concerned, will endeavor to give you men
who will see that the law is impartially ad-
miniStercd.'"
That is what he said; that is what he
meant, and that is what is being done.
And still the people of Utah are not con-
tent.
Last Saturday a very distinguished
man and a Democrat-Mr. Justice Ste-
phen j. Field, of the Supreme Court of
the United States-was in this city, and
in conversation with reporter of one of
our city journals, said it was his earnest
desire TO see polygamy suppressed. He
also said: 81 believe that it is the deter
mination of the Government, so far as
legal efforts are concerned, to continue
the enforcement of the law" 1t should |
be remembered by the people of Utah
that it was TO Mr.. Justice Field that they
looked to dissent from the majority of the !
Supreme Court in the Reynolds case if |
the Court held the law of 1862 to be
valid, and that he did not dissent. They
should also remember that it has been
Mr.. Justice Field chiefly who has for the |
past twenty-five years stood in the Su-
preme Court as the champion of a
Democratic construction of the Constitu-
ton, and ever the friend of individual
rights as against pubic rights. And vet
he says he desires to see polygamy
and thinks it is the
determination of the Government to en-
force the laws against it. Here, then,
ire two of the most eminent men in the
country, both Democrats, one the Presi-
lent of the United States, and the other
Judge of the Supreme Court, and both
iesire to see polygamy suppressed. Could
hese men as officers of the law desire
else than to see the laws en-
orced, when it is the sworn duty of one
o say, with his associates, whether laws
Ire valid or not, and of the other to see
hat all laws are enforced? Aside from
heir official capacity could men of excep-
ional worth and eminence who have been
in the ideas of the highest civ
lization that the world has produced.
he civilization of nineteen centuries of
christianity, desire to see successfully
system Of the family that ,
diametrically opposed to the system of |
IL sects of Christians, the one thing in '
which they have all agreed? Would it s
Ne natural for them to sanction a system t
hat has only found favor with the semi
arbarous nations of Asia and Africa?
5 no consideration to be given to that
Hstem of the family which has always