Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-07-16

nor any one else know; or IL there b,
but one writer hls changing moods
wculi be the envy OF Dr.. Jekyll-
nnd-Mr. Hyde mind. A few days ago
the NEWS took pleasure In calling at
tenton to an editorial Of the fair
minded class. Now 1t regrets the
necessity for directing notice to one Of
the other kind. In its istue OF Jurc
IA the Chronicle, referring to an nsser'
ton 1t had made previously that there
was no statutory provision In this
State to enforce the constitutional pro-
vision against polygsmy. which asser.
tion, with number OF other state
ments, haj bsen characterized by the
. den Standard rs untrue, reiterates
he charge OF "ihe neglect or refusal
OF the MormoDs to make po!ygamy
punishable" and GdIs;
II The Saints are acting in good faith
with the government. why have they not
given tho breath OF life to tho constitu-
liOnal provision which thoy adopled as
a means of inducing Congress TO grant
| them statehood? There Is now no law
against plural marriages IN Utah. and
nineteen Mormons out of twenty coz
tend that polygamy ia scriptural and
| right. Updor such circumstances how
long would 1t probably be If The Fed
eral government did not inter vone TO
| punish them for breach OF contract in
The way we hayo pointed out, before
I Mormondom had returned TO its origi-
nal wallow?
The statements that there wa. either
"neglec. or refusal OF the M,rmons 10
make polygamy pu nishabie," and that
'there is now no law against plural
marriages In Utah." are distinct
ly, positively ana WILDLY un.
true, as established by the statute
booke OF this State. The State C5nsii.
tuition provided that "polygamo us or
plural marriages are forever pro-
hibitei" in the State; 1t also went
farther, ami gave "tne breath OF lie"
to that provision, by declaring the act
OF the Legislature (the majority of the
membership thereof belng Mormnnr)
Furnishing poIygamy "to be in force in
the State OF Utah" 81 far "a its
direotnezs and penalties are concerned,
The law against polygamy In Utah
probably is equal to anything Cali.
fornia has on ths subiec.; certainly
the last named state is not harder
place for those who commit The
ofiense than is Utah, judging by the
news reports Ga this subject in tho
columns of our able cotemporary
ITSELF
As to the existing law on the sub
ject in Utah, which the Chronicle
enormously declares not to be, here 1t
10 as published in the officially
printed statute book, and rs 1t is now
In force and has been ever since Janu-
airy, 1905, when Statehood was as.
sumed:
Every person who has a husband or
wife living, who hereafter marries an
othor. whothor married or single, and
any man who hereafter, simultaneously,
or on the same day, marrIes more than
one woman, Is guilty OF polygamy, and
shall be punished By fine OF not more
than Ave hundred dollars and by I'M
prisoninent for term of not more than
five years; but this section shall not ex-
tend to any person by reason OF any
| lOfIlsE IuurrluEb WutIo husuhuu UT WIZ
by such marriage shall have been absent
Tor fve successive years, and is not
known to snch person TO DO living, and
IL believed by such person to be dead,
nor TO any person by reason of any
former marriage which shall have been
dissolved by valid decree Of n
competent court, nor to any person by
reason OF any former marriage which
shall have been pronounced void by a
valid decree OF a competent court. on the
! ground of nullity OF the marriage con-
| tract.
The Chronicle promises to "cheer.
fully apologize" for its attack when
. corrected, or informed of Legislation
3 against polygnmy which it asseriei
, had not been made. Here is chance
I for the fair.minded editor to get in his
| work.