The times., 1901-03-13
PoIyEamy in Utah.

PoIyEamy in Utah.
Living as we do in an era Of rapid and
/ even startling institutional changes, hard
/ ly anything could happen in connection
with political or social revolutions which
ought to surprise the people of America.
/ Nevertheless, it is fair to presume that
there viii be q harsh outcry against the
State of Utah on account of the action
Of its Legislature in passing law which
allows polygamous citizens who establish
ed harems before the date Of the Edmunds
Act to continue in their plural relations.
The new law goes a little further in pro-
viding that the fact of poIygamous reIa-
tions can be judicially noticed only on
the relation Of the polygamous husband
or one or more OF his wives. or Of persons
in close consanguinity with one or the
other. Inasmuch as all the parties 10 such
a possible proceeding would be Mormons,
and, as such, subject to certain and Sc
we're penalties neither known to nor
contemplated by the statute or common
law. the idea that polygamous relations
would result i'm punishment would appear
preposteroUs.
We may dismiss from our minds any
notion that the people Of Utah-a large
majority OF whom are humble and fanati-
cally conscientious followers of Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young-eyer intended
to keep faith with the General Govern
meut when they pretended 10 abandon
polygamy as the price of statehood
Under the rose. 1t is notorious that the
system has been perpetuated, and exists
in more or less fiourishing condition to-
day. 1t only needs the legal protection
which the Legislature has now shrewdly
provided to make the practice safe That
The law, should it be signed by the Gov
ernOr a matter as to which there is no
reasonable doubt. will be accepted gen
orally in the State as a license to re
turn to the ancient family landmarks.
there is no reason to doubt Short Of a
constitutional amendment. making no
lygamy within the United States or its
jurisdiction felonious, there is no legal
means OF reaching the case.
We are not as much inclined as are
some people to throw the first stone at
our Mormon felow-citizens. To begin
with, there is really something to be said
for their contention that their plural
method, which they attempt to legitima-
tie and make honorable. is at least bet
other parts Of the country and which
degrades and makes outcasts of the
women who are parties to it. But il must
be admitted that there is "A specious quail
ity in the argument; because two wrongs
do not make a right, and morals aside.
public policy makes II mandatory upon
as to preserve that only normal and sue
cessful basis Of civilized modern society,
the mOnogamic family.
At the same time it is proper for us TO !
look at the subject from the Mormon
point Of view, which must be in a sense |
honest because it exposes those who hold
10 it 90 the ridiculc and aversion of all |
christendom. As question of plain |
equity it might be cruel 10 forcibIy sep
arate the elderly saint from the compan- |
ionship of the half or whole dozen of |
dearly beloved wives who have brought |
him a small regiment Of sturdy children |
and have been the partners of his iovs |
and sorrows all the way from a quarter /
to half a century But this is not per |
haps, the strongest claim that the Latter |
Day brethren have upon our charitable |
cuusids Grafton
IL is quite competent for them 10 insist |
that II Dolygamy and slavery are recog- /
uized as legal American institutions in |
the Sulu Archipelago by an executive or
der having all the force Of law-as law in |
the colonies is interpreted by the Admin !
istration-p -polygamy alone should be toll
Grated IN another part of the United /
States The flag which floats proudly
over the harem of our subject the Sultan
Of JoIo need not think itself in bad com
pauy when il is hoisted over the viz
uous and truly plural home Of Mormon
bishop or elder.
in other words we must take the walk
ing beam out Of our own eye before we
can hope to find the little domestic mote
80. fg... owe FF T-fHH