Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-02-28

We quoted article xiv. sec. 2. and also
the text Of the law thus continued In
force.
In an attempted reply to this, the
Lamont Herald takes up laborcd ar
gumcnt to prove that poiygnmy means
the having or LIVING with plurality "
wives. and after spending much time
and space over II states;
This II the sort of polygamy that
the Herald referred to aud meant when
II stated that tho Beciaiaturc Of Utah
had pufp0sely enacted no law to pre-
vent oi punish polygumy'
First. let US make clear the meaning
Of the terrns employed in this question
Of 'Vornoity." NJ It is put by the
Herald but which started as q qucs-
ton ~ law. what il raeant by the Ian
Funae Of the state Constitution. and
what Il required by the Enabling Act3
The term poiyramy IN the law was not
defined by the people ~ Utah. but by
act ~ Congress. the author ~ which
was senator George y. Edmunda. whom
the Herald cites az an authority. The
isdmunds act n March %. iss2 hSod
it, legal definition In the United States
It was made 10 be the act Of marrying
a wife or husband by n person having
a living and undlvorccd wife or huH-
band. This was made punishable by
% maximum fine Of i've hundred dollars.
ana imprisonment not more than i've
years The offenao ~ living with q
plurality 81 wives was called
unlawful cohabitaiion made n INSIDE
meanor and punished by aiS months
imprisonment and o. fine u three hum
dred dollars ~ maximum penalties.
In an the controversies before the
courts on this matter these terms have
been employed. The oncnscs are diff
fcrcnt aud distinct. II does not matter
what Webster. or Worcester or any
other photographer may have to say
when legal definition IL wanted We 40
10 the law for u II II Il a legal question.
hut this controversy goes little fur
iher than that In order that there
might b. no mistake as to what Con-
greHs required Of Utah AZ a condition
precedent to her admission into the
Union. tho term puiygamy was not used
at all. The language Of tho Enabling
Act iai
Provided that polygamous or plural
marriages are forever prohibited
Dissertations over the pathological
adjudication ~ the term "polygamy'
are wasted. then. Utah inserted thi. pro-
vision In her state Constitution M re-
qulrcd. usinE the same language. The
Lamont ilcrnid's aarcasmH about the
"shrcwd cunning Of Mormon neigh
bors"and' pretty piece OF political trick
cry" and the rest of Il. are thrown
away. 70 are its essays ON the alleged
"atipulntinn" In the Enabling Act that
In the state Constitution ''polygnmy
should be forever prohibited. polygamy
as dcnned by Webster was the
thing intended 10 he prohibited"
The Enabling Act ala not provide any
such thing. nor intend any such dcnni-
ton. but performed that "piccc Of po-
iltical tfickery'--lf there was any such
thlng--whlch the Lamont Herald at
tributes to tho "shrcwd cunning Of
the "Mormons."
And now. 10 close up the argument.
II the Herald people will turn To chap
ter a Of the Utah penal code In i'e-
NHcd statutes Of 1888 they viii md all
the punishmcnts and penalties that
they want and that they Etill declare
the Utah Legislature purpoacly cnncted
/ M law about. After they have rcad
oil tho provisions against polygamy
and unlawful oohabitation contained
therein. pcrhapa they viii acknowledge
they were wrong In their first assertion
nnd also IN their last. A. 20 their school
boy janglc about tho dictionary. u cuts
no nguro In tho question 81 what u ~
| II not IN tho law. aud what II the legal
Specification Of the terms which thu
law employs. II this II a question Of
! "ycraclty" tho Herald ~ equally at
fault. However. we shall be- surprised
n II makes that open confession
which Is said 10 be- good Tor the soul