Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-05-23
CONSTITUTIONAL
POLyCAMY."
The Lamont Herald Acknowledges
It's Mistake.
TIE DEsERET NEWS RIGHT
The ueorasnised Jo.rpbitei church
Organ rrcseats ia. Matter Fairly
We copy as Requested.

rndcr the first hadlng the Lamont
Herald. published by the Reorgnnlzod
Joscphite) church has the following
leading artiolei
The following from the Dcscrct News
for May Q disposos of our contention
In regard to the laws n Utah. proyid-
Ing for the punishment OF poiyghmy.
We publish Tor two reasons. one.
that the readers ~ the Herald may
know what the official paper ~ the
Utah Church has a. say of our state.
mcnt and argument. the other, that
the difference between the meaning "
the word pulyEamy a. defined by our
photographers and commonly under.
stood by people outside of Utah. and
the icgni meaning of the term "a do
lined In the Enabling Act of Congress
under which Utah became State, the
Constitution % Utah framed Ia accord
with such Enabling Act. as stated by
the News"
vERACITY on LAW
Under N. heading of "a question OF
Ncracity," the Lamont. Iowa. Herald
discusses u matter In dispute with the
DESERT News. The Herald. which "
the orEan OF the so-cailed "RcorGan.
lied" church. published this statement
concerning Utah.
THE Legislature Of which state has
purpuseiy enacted no law by which itH
citizens may b, compelled ~ live In ne.
cord with the provision In the act under
which ttah became state. 'polygatny
10 forever prohibited or 70 suffsr pun.
iHhmcnt " they fail to do IT,"
The Dessert News copied this. and
proceeded to prove ffum the State Com
Httution that not only had the require
iuentH ~ the Enabling Act of Congress
been fuiiy compiled with. hut that an
additional provision had been placed In
the state Constitution. by which the
penalties against polyEamy Imposed by
the act ~ February I, iss1. were made
part OF the supreme Law Of the State.
We quoted article xiv. section 2. and
alfn the text u the law thus com
tlnucd In force.
In an attempted reply 10 this. the
Lamont Herald takes up a inbofrd ar
gument H. prove that polyHnmy means
the having Or living with u plurality of
wives, and after spending much time
aud space over u States
This n the sort ~ pniygamy that
the herald referred 90 anu meant when
u stated that the Legislature 81 Utah
had purposcly enacted no law 10 pre-
vent ~ punish polyHamy."
First. let ~ make clear the meaning
% the terms employed In this question
" 'vefaciiy," ~ u n put by the Her.
ala, bu, which started al question ~
law. What IA meant by the language
" the state Constitution. and what IN
required by the Enabling Actf The
term polyEamy In the law was not de.
nned BY the pcopl. Of Utah. but by
act 81 Congress. the author ~ which
was senator George y. EdmundH. whom
theli"raii cites - an authority. The
tdmunds Act Of March y. iss2, nxci
IT, LEGAL definition In the United states
II Was made % be the act VI marrying
wife OF husband by a person having
a living and undlvorccd wife or huH.
band. This was made punishable by
maximum me ~ fivo hundred dol-
lars, ana imprisonment not more than
i've years. The orvnse OF living with a
plurality Of wives was called unlnw-
ful cohabltation, made a miadcmeanor
nnd punished BY six months imprison.
incnt ana Tine of three hundred d0l-
lars uH maximum penalties.
In all the controversies before tho
courts ON this matter these terms have
been employed. The offcnHea arr diner.
Ont and distinct, II does not matter
what Webster or Worcester. or any
other photographer may have to say,
when LEGAL d.hnition .. wanted We 80
TO the law for II ~ q legal question.
liut this controversy goes a little
further than that In order that there
might BE- no mistake AZ TO what con.
HrcHH required nf Utah as a condition
precedent 10 her admission into the
Union, the term polyEamy was not
us.d at all, The language Of the I'm
ablinF Act isi--
Provided that poiyFamoua or plural
marriages arr forever prohibited
Dissertations over the pathological
Specification ~ the term ''pnlygamys
are wasted, then. Utah inserted this
provision In her state Consultation a.
required. using the same language.
The Lamont ilerald'H parcnnm- about
Tho rhrsWd cunning % Mormon
neighhorH" and pretty piece of pollti-
cat trickery," and the rest OF II. are
thrown away, 70 ar. ltn .naaya on the
alleged stipulation" In the Enabling
Act that IN the State Constitution
''polyEamy should be- forever prohibit
Cd, polygamy na defined by Webster
was the thing intended 10 be pro-
limited"
The Enabling Act ala not provide
any such thing. nor intend any such
definition. but performed that piece Of
political trlCkory'-if there was any
such thing which the Lamont Herald
attributes 10 the "fhrowd cunning" Of
tho "MormnnH."
Aud now, 10 close up the argument
" Wv NN'NMNN NfNIfNN VIII NhfI 10 inMNla
ter a ~ the Utah penal code In Io-
viHed statutes % 1888 they VIII IND an
the puniHhmenta ana penalties that
they want and that they atll declare
tie Utah LEGISLATURE purpossly en-
acted M law about. After they have
read all the provisions against polyga-
my and unlawful cohabitatiOn cons
tained therein, perhaps they VIII nu-
knowledge they were wrong IN their
first assertion and also IN their last. AZ
10 their srhnplhoy Jangle about the die
tlonafy, u cuts no figure In tho qliea-
tion ~ what " or N not In the law, and
what N the legal adjudication ~ the
terms which the law employs. N this
II a question NJ ''yeracity" the Herald
II equally at fault, However. we shall
be- surprised n Il makes that open com
fesrinn" which II said 10 be good for
the soul"
We sent 10 Utah nearly two months
arc for n copy N the statutes ~ that