Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-04-20
WHAT SHOULD BE THE OBJECT?

has a long article on the subject of the
problem to be solved in this Territory,
under the caption, mot Their Object. 3"
Its very first declaration is that the poll
teal fight here is zone of the most infer
nal pieces of hypocrisy ever carried into
practical effect" on "the pretense that
the desire to destroy polygamy is the OBJ
ject sought to be attained by the raid
ers." That is very weak, very
lame and very shallow statement,
and is merely a calling of names and
not an answer to any charge made by
any particular party in Utah. Has not
the most of our trouble in Utah come
from just such arguments? The majority
of the people of Utah are Mormons, and
the great error of those who have been
opposed to them has been in calling them
hypocrites, dupes, slaves and such like.
Will the Journal undertake to deny that
polygamy exists in Utah and that the
laws of Congress against it are valid and
have been so declared by the Supreme
Court of the United States?
The people here think that the United
States have no right to be here, and
that the officers of the law are raiders and
plunderers. In this thought they have
been raised and from this thought they
have claimed divine right to establish
polygamy in Utah and adjacent Terri
tories, and in so doing claim the sover-
eign rights of people who reside in the
States. This simple fact is the key note
to our whole political difficulty which is
that the people of Utah have claimed
political supremacy as divine right. 1t
is not new claim in the world by any
means, but it is claim which has caused
more bloodshed in civilized countries
than any other
Now, let us see what of polygamy. For
twenty-three years the laws of Congress
have said that polygamy was crime in
any place in which the United States had
exclusive jurisdiction, and for twenty
three years the people of Utah have said
this is the Kingdom of God, and polygamy
is of God, and we will have it. And they
have had il. What has been the result? A
whole generation has been born in it, and
the wrongs which are now seemingly
being inflicted upon this generation are
the wrongs of those who raised up this
generation Of polygamous children.
The wrongs seem to be from the United
States now, but God knows they
are not. They come from those who |
claim to serve God in preference to obey
ing the laws of man. We never have
and we do not now believe the wild and |
terrible stories about the great unhappi-
ness in polygamic families and how wives |
are quarreling continually and making
scenes which would disgrace Kilkenny I
cats. But we believe and we know that
polygamy has damned more people here
on earth than it can ever save; and if
they are not damned hereafter, they
ought to be. And we hear continually
that in monogamic families there is
much unhappiness, and it is used as
an argument in favor of a palliation
of the unhappiness which polygamy
creates. 1t is true that there is much un-
happiness in monogamic families, but it
is also true that polygamy increases the
instead of lessening it, But
the worst evils Of polygamy are not the
disappointments of the wives, for they
are OF mature years when they enter into
the marriage state, but the effect it has
upon the children of one father by MANY
mothers. We have never yet seen [
family in which there was not a jealousy {
between the children of the first family i
md the children ofthe polygamic families. {
True, this is much greater in some families
han in others; but it exists in all, more
)r less. Does the Journal know what f
hat peculiar expression ''our own family" 9
means? If it does not, we can tell it, G
t means the mother and her own child \
en, in which the children of the half Q
blood are not counted. And when this a
$ cited as thing which initiates against v
'olygamy, the answer is made that it is t
atural for uterine brothers and sisters l.
the whole blood to think more of each p
ther than of those of the half-blood of le
ne father. Yes, it is more natural: it is Ct
umanity, it's Gods law, and being such,
here should be no marriage system
hich can make it otherwise.
Is it quite all peace and good will in
olygamic families. Is there never the -
'ast jar? 1t seems to us otherwise, and
mong those who claimed great wisdom
nd felt that a special Prov idence was CT
uiding them in the true path, from :,
hich it was impossible for them to de- h,
art, we have seen an unseemly haste to q
Ike advantage of a human law, which q
i'd that the children of only one wife ~
ere legal heirs, and that they were the if
lildren of that one wife. And further, as
e have seen those who were very high cI
authority, so high that it is said that VI W
times they commune with God, and ~ NJ
D only what he tells them is right, en- fo
1rse this taking advantage of mans law Ell
defeat the rights of polygamous children "
ld say that it was right. Yes, there is wi
uch talk Of how all children are equal re
sfore the church, and that for this very
ason they should uphold the laws of ", W.
cd, for the laws of man do not recognize II
ny rights in them; but it is most won it
,rful what an inequality there is the in
N