The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1903-12-05

/ N' -ShA0uSA AAS S4SdlSSt
disciple, and, finally, declared by
Christian congregations as not a
proper subject Of ecclesiastical con-
troll, I confess that I am not much
moved by the anthemas which the
dominant Christian church of any
subsequent period may hurl against
that practice. And, sir, when am
told on good Christian authority
that there are 900, 900 female pros
titutes and 5000, 900 male prosti-
tutes in this Christian land; that
there are more modest women ac-
cording to population in Madagas-
car than in England, and that adul-
terry, fornication and divorce are
rife and increasing throughout the
Christian world, I can still dep1ore
the existence of sporadic and incon-
sistent cases of polygany in Utah
and Idaho, but I am not overcome
with the enormity of it, nor am
seized with a holy zeal to drive
every last, lingering devotee into
the penitentiary.
Prosecute and persecute the Nor
mons for undertaking to re.estab-
lish the "patriarchal order" of your
Bible if you please, but permit me
to think that if the churches, the
purists and the civil authorities
would expend half theenergy against
prostitution and divorce that they
are employing against the moribund
institution of polygeuy, they would
accomplish immeasurably more for
the elevation of mankind and the
purity of the home. But I do not
hear of any of those clamoring for
even a Constitutional Amendment
giving federal jurisdiction over
these evils. Why, my dear friend,
you crave for further legislation
against polygamy, while in your
own State there is no law against
prostitution or adultery. Within
the week, an Idaho court has been
obliged to decide that any foul
mouthed blackguard may publicly
proclaim your wife or my wife an
adulteress without danger of legal
punishment. In Idaho adultery is
not crime, and should you catch
a brother Ragrante diIIct0, you
would be liable for trespass if you
interfered. Don't you think the
ministers ought to give this matter
a little attention, or do they not
consider adultery as one of the
"grosser crimes?'
Now, sir, I wish to reiterate with
all possible emphasis that | do not
approve of polygamy, although, I
am unable to perceive that it neces-
sarily violates any fundamental law,
moral or divine. Ny disapproval
is based mainly upon other consid-
erations; and here may say that l
am strongly disposed to monogamy
in the strictest Christian sense,
namely, the union of one man and
one woman, indissoluble until death
except for cause of tornication. l
believe that history proves that the
monogamic family, more than any
other, is productive of high charac'
ter. individual and national; that it
is better for the nurture of children;
that it makes for the elevation of
women; and, finally, that one wo-
man, with the offspring of which
she is capable, is all that any man
ought to undertake, therefore, mo-
nogamy, as I reason, is politically
and economically correct. / do not
trouble myself about its spiritual
aspects, because of that I dare not
Judge, and, impressed as I am, by
the records OF inspired writers, I
sometimes think that the less any
body dwells on the rights and
wrongs of it, in a spiritual sense,
the surer he is not to go wrong.
AS to moral aspects: If one man
and six women, or six women and
one man, being legally competent
to enter upon civil contract, of
their own free will and volition
agree to cohabit together, and then
o~a oornDal1ed tO live nv the terms