The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-02-16

| argued that the provisions in the omni-
! bus statehood bill regarding polyganIy
We're adequate and cited the provisions
in the enabling acts for Utah, Montana,
Idaho and Wyoming as instances IN
point.
Mr. Gallinger-On the Sd day of July,
| 1890, the state or Idaho was admitted
TO the Union. and 1 think am not
mistaken in the assertion that it mas
| been suggested in various quarters thai
| the Mormons were getting footnoid
| in the state of Idaho. I ask my friend
! from Idaho (Mr. Dubois) if that con-
| tention has not frequently been made!
Mr.. Dubois-With the consent II the
senator from New Jersey (Mr. ke3nl
l will answer that question and some
| others when the senator has cone.uds@
! his remarks / viii answer the sen
ator's question now if he desires, but
| l would like to submit some TURNER
! remarks n answer to the senator 8
question.
Mr.. Gallinger-I will simply say in
this connection that in the bill in 1890,
I which received the approval of various
| Of our leading se.'2tors here some ot
| whom have perhaps recently been eX-
| erciSed over this question of Mormon
ism. there is not line relaxing TO the
question of Morzlonism. Congress m
its wisdom and toe chief executive LETT
| K 10 the state to deal with it. Gnd
| presume the stare CT Idaho is dealing
with that question very successfully
! At any rate, / -aY9 heard no rSSFGt
SU3G estion thai MC rmonis!n is IreVa-
lent in that new end very prosperous
! slate.
-Four years Ia3e~, n the l6.h day of
| July. 1894, an act WAS passed admitting
I Utah into the UliOns on an equ Il FOOT
| lag With the original states.
Now, Mr.. President, 1 need not dis
cuss the question as to whether the
| Mormon religion or the praetice VI
| Poiygamy existed in the state OF Utah
That is known to AL men, AMI = woai4
be simply a vase of time i 1 saouia
Undertake to discuss ii.
Congress passed d law admitting that
eIritory to the Union, and wat kind
| Of a provision lid congress put INTO
tae bill relating 10 polygamy? These
senators were here. They knew all
about this question of MoImonlsm
whether or not it was one that should
be dealt with in the bill admitting this
new state, and in that bill was Inserted
this provision:
That perfect liberation of religious
sentiment shall be secured, and that
| no inhabitant of said state shall ever
| be molested in person or property on
account of his or her mode of religious
worship; provided, that polygamous or
plural marriages are forever prohlbit-
ed"
Now, Mr.. President, that is precisely
| the provision that is in the bill now
before the senate, under which we pro-
pose, if it is enacted into law, to admit
the states of New Mexico. Arizona and
Oklahoma; or, to be more specific, it is
| the precise phraseology that is in the
| bill relating TO New Mexico and Arr
| zona.- And yet on yesterday senators,
/ under the right they have in debate,
! doubtless responding to conscientious
! convictions. raised a great hue and cry
| ina6RnnaRX
that was found in this bill relating TO
| the question of polygamy.
Mr.. Kean-Will the senator yield to
me for a question?
Mr.. misunderstanding. The sena-
tor has yielded to me.
Mr.. Kean-Does the senator consider
the present provision against poIygamy
adequate?
Mr. GaIIinger-I am not discussing
n that. 1 was intending to say before L
Il got through that have had legislative
Experience enough TO know that this
matter, having been sprung upon the
/ senate, if the senator from New Jersey
does not, some senator on that side OF
the question viii say that the provision
| relating to Utah is not adequate. 1
have ANTICIPATED that.
Mr.. Kean-I certainly say so.
! Mr.. GaIlinger-I have anticipated
! that and / think I am safe in saying
that the senator from New Jersey will
! doubtless indulge in that contention.
The senator mods his head. So I am
prepared for that.
But, Mr.. President, any criticism
made upon those of us who have been
/ supporting this bill, in so far as this
l.question Of polygamy goes, is not, to
my mind, very we'll placed when it is
| considered that when Utah was admit
ted as a state, that we all knew at one
time did tolerate the practice of polyg-
amy, and, indeed, the territory in which
| polygamy perhaps found it's origin, the
wise men of congress and the chief ex-
ecutive of the nation thought that was
an adequate provision, and, so far as
know, very little proof has been sup
piled to the country that it has not
proved adequate. AS TO those of US
! who thought that that provision in the
bill that is now before us, being in the
identical language of the provision in
the statute admitting Utah was SUI
ficient, it ought at least to exclude from
the province of severe criticism for
having entertained that. view.
/ Mr.. Gallinger-The senator from
Colorado asks me as to the provision
in this statute relating to Wyoming.
l omitted to get that, but 1 viii venture
to say. Mr.. President that there was
territory, which is now a state, in
| which a very large Mormon population
is found, and l feel sure that it viii be
found upon examining the statute THAI
there is no more stringent provision in
that law than there is in the bill now
| under consideration.
Mr.. Dubois-Yesterday I was neces-
sarily absent, by the permission of the
! senate, attending to my duties as one
of a sub committee on an appropriation
BILL when this discussion arose, or
should have spoken then in regard to it.
When Idaho came into the Union its
| constitution provided that the legis-
lature of Idaho could disfranchise the
! Mormons with q line, simply by enact
ing that no Mormon should vote in Ida
no or sit on jury there. As a matter
of fact, when Idaho was admitted into
! the Union the Mormons were disfran-
| chised and could not sit on jury. That
was our test OATH The question was
! taken to ali the courts, and finally sus-
tanned unanimously by the supreme
court of the United States.
1 commended. as senators here know,
| that that provision of our constitution
should not be disturbed. A great many
senators were loath to admit a state
! with such a test oath. 1 took the
ground that on account of the peculiar
ity of those people and their belief in
the divine institution of pOlygamy we
ought not to be forced into the Union
| without this clause, which our people
| wanted; that congress could keep us
| out, but that, representing my people
as a delegate, 1 protested they should
not take US in unless this constitutional