Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-12-19

BOLD WORDS.

IlELEANR = M " AAAH3 ~ r. ~ ne
alton which the gentleman from Yer.
mont Mr. Powofs suggests.
Several members: Let II be read.
Mr. Powers The amendment which
I propose IL 10 add after the word
Uworship" In the nineteenth line, page
4fwhich is the clause prohibiting Ger.
tain thingsl the following wordH
Provided that poiygam0us marriages shan
BE- forever prohibited
understand that the gentleman
from Utah asaents that this amend
ment may be made.
The Chairman. Tho amendment Ia
not In order now.
Mr.. Powers; / have suggested this
prOvleion for the reason that II occurs
10 me the amendment proposed by thu
minority Of the committee Is altogether
too cumbersome; there Is too much
machinery about 1t.
Tho Chnirman. At the proper time
the amendment can BIO subu tod.
Mr. Rawlins resumed the door.
Mr.. HuntoE / would like to NIX the
gentleman from Utah this question: H.
Il not fact that the provisions Of this
bill, II adopted, VIII carry into effect
the territorial laws until the Territory
becomes a state, which will elUclualy
suppress polypamy until the Leyisla.
tufe can mceH
Mr.. RswlinG The present enabling
act as proposed contains a provision
which / was about 10 read. This pro.
vision Of the enabling act, aa proposed
BY the committee, IL that
Ai laws IN force made by said Territory At
tur time OF lta admission into the Union shall
bo 300 force in slii state, except us modified
aud changed b. thia &C. Or BY tho contutuiion
VI the state.
Now, the laws 10 which I have re-.
feffcd, enacted ty the Territorial Leg
islntufp, will, by the operation OF this
provision ofthu enabling act, be c0ntln.
ued In force under the state govern.
meut. IL IL true that the legislature Of
the state might n it saw nt repeal or
modify those statutes, but polyramy
would be- unlawful. P0lygnmouH mar.
riagos would be invalid, by force Of
these Territorial statutes upon the
passage Of this enabling act, without
any pf0vleiou ia the constitution or IN
the enabling net other than what /
have read providing against polygamy.
Tho objection which | have, as 1
have already stated, 10 the definition
OF the offence OF polygamy In the con.
stituton 10 that u the provision DO
adopted by Congress u VIII leave tbs
matter In an unsatisfactory condition,
for tho reason that u Will repeal. Tor
instance, the statutes thut 1 have read
unactCi by tho Legislature OF the Ter.
rli1ty; because the definition OF "po.
lygamy," ua contained In the amend
mont Of the minority, Is incumbent
with these statutes. IL rather tends, Ia
my Judgment, 10 prevent the exercise
VI the full authority on the part u tho
state, OF powers 10 prevent any revival
Of tits obnoxious practice, aud We
do not intcnd-the people OF Utah do
not intend, In my boliol-that u shall
b. revived.
There IL, I think, nobody In tho
Territory at THIS time who has any de-
sire Whatever 10 revive H. The
leaders Of tho Mormon Church have
tulumnly protested and pledged their
faith and honor and tho faith and
honor OF the pc0plc-the entire PEG.
ole OF the Mormon Church-that they
viii not revive this practice. They
did II in the petition TOR amnesty au-
dredaou 10 tho President, and all the
leading Federal officials In the Terri
tory Joined In a statement that they be.
lieved that these men were sincere In
asking the President 10 exercise his
Clomency In their behalf In accord
nnce with tho petition.
There have been no Mormon pOlyg-
nmUus marriages. In Utah, 10 Tar a.
known, withia the last eight or ten
years, with few exceptions, and the
public declaration Of tho Mormon
Church u that there has been dis
continuance Of tho practice. The
N.as0IaIufttV.. hUa uHFaH aUaFW lmNHT "a.
quirrd for the prevention Of the r..
Vival OF the practice, anu In view Of
these facts no provision Is necessary, la
my Judgment, although am willing
10 consent that the amendment pro.
posed by the gentleman from Vermont,
which has been read, may be
adopted.
Mt. Baker OF Now Hampshire: iNill
tho gentleman allow ms 10 ask him d
question:
Mr.. RRwllug Certainly.
Mr.. Baker OF New HampahlfC'
Docs not the bill now before the House
change tho law Nc 10 the repatriation
Of volcrs; ana II s0,please state In whal
particulars?
Mr.. Rawiins: IL only changes II Il
this extent The same method OI
registration as now provided viii pre-
vail. Under tho existing statute "A
man 10 DO entitled to register or vote b
required 10 take oath shat thV viii
not commit iornioatiUn, adultery AND
various other crimes. IL is an exceed
ingly obnoxious and offensive test &
apply 10 any man.
10 Ia an insult TO any respeciabl,
citizen. Everybody, In fact, Is now
entitled 90 vote, IL there are ans
H..N 10 ~ s.nNNHtstN
vote under the amnesty proclamation
Of the President; and to continue thai
obnoxious provision Of the Eumunds'