Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-01-31
POSSIBLE nur iMrnoB,BLE.


Some NJ the influential papers ~ the
country are stirred up to a pitch Of
excitement over the statements ~ ok
senator George ~ Edmunds. In a Ncw
York journal. that. IT 10 within the
legal power of Utah and OF every other
stale. To- make poiyEamy lawful " u
chooses" also that the House ~ Rep
reaentatlyca cannot conrtitutipnnliy
refuse scat 10 regularly elected
poiygamlst from any state. The House
" Representatives. like other bodies ~
that character. may be- "A law unto IT,
self and violate the constltutlon.which
nxos the qualifications Of members, 10
seat. or refuse to scat whoms0ever II
plcascs. with or without Just reason.
but this would be dangerous course
and practice"
why should this simple explanation
~ fundamental principles and cnunci-
alton ~ statutory Law produce such q
startling effect ON tho minds NJ cdi'
toriai writer's In the United staicsf II
Il not surprising that the cS.senaturr
rcmnrka should make hurry among
ladies and preachers, who arr ~ great
iy concerned about the wlckcdncss NJ
far off Utah and 20 little concerned
about the corruption under their own
NOSES. They exhibit the most profound
ignorance both Of the laws ~ their
country and the facts In the ease. nut
editors are supposed 90 know some
thing about the powers NJ the rcspcc-
tive states and their relation 10 the
National Government
As To the power of state 10 eatab-
il.h polyEamy by law. ihcr- can be- no
doubt with anybody who ran read the
Constitution ~ the United States aud
understand what he reads Nor can
thcrr b. any sensible dispute rs to the
RICH, to seat In Congress, Of any per-
son lawfully elected and having the
qualifications required by law. The
only question related a. this subject
which eau naturally arouse attention.
IL the probability Of the establishment
81 polygamy by law In any state OF the
Union.
There IL less likelihood 81 such an
event In Utah than In some other parts
of this country. polymmy h here
forever prohibited" by the stntr ,on.
stitutlon. ~ required In the Enabl.ns
Act under which Utah became a sovcr-
cisn state. The power to change that
instrument. II N true. II carried with
In itself. hut such nm amendment would
be In violation Of tho contract Implied
In the terms ~ admission into the
Union. and could not be- effected With
out n radical and overwhelming change
In public sentiment. local and national
There IN M movemen, In utah look
Ink To such an end. There Is M irten-
ton On anybodys part that W. have
heard ~ 10 inauHurate such uchrme
II would be buried at once under an
avalanche 81 dissent. u IL not in@hed
or limited at nmong tho Mormon" pco-
pie or their church leaders We speak
of What We know. aud without che
shadow OF doubt as To liz absolute
truth.
We remind our excited friends IN tho
East that when the Mormon" people
had full control 81 affairs In this region.
they never attempted 10 crtablish pnlyg-
amy by law, 80 such enactment APP
pearcd In the statutes " the Territory.
That was when public sentiment here
favored the system as n religious 'nstl-
tuition. ana there Was No law Of Goa
grcrr forblddlng u, Now that h1th the
Nation and the State have declared
against II and there II no desfrc on tho
pari ~ thu people here 10 make ANY
change, Il II amusing Ia sce the gruund-
less fears ana read the Henaclrss ~
marks made about II by people AMI pa
peers that ought To have better sense.
There II ~ cxcltnblc and via IN
element IN American socieiy na oNiH,H
NJ the French capital, ana when ~ IL
carried away by some foolish rumDf.
II Il as inscnrlblc TO reason and unil,i.
Gus to- facts as a lynching mob swept
ON Ia murdcroua fronsy The cuun-
try win cool down after a white as'i
win then, perhaps, look on this matter
with a little calm. common Heu-c aud
see that between possibilities and probe
abilities there h often very Wide ulf-
ference.