Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-06-08

when IN 1889 application to enter the
National Council Of Women Of the
United states came 10 the first official
board of the national council far from
feeling any impulse to give my vote for
rejecting the applicants, / looked upon
their entrance into the council as Il
means of bringing them into relations
with social opinions and social prac-
tlses which would render the resump-
ton OF pOlygamy among them impos-
sible. Miss Frances T.. Willard. at that
time president Of the National Council.
entertained the same view. The Ed
mund's bill having become a law, Utah
having been admitted into the Union
as a peer OF other states on condition
of conformity TO the doctrine and law
OF monogamic marriage, ] felt that the
question OF their religious faith should
no more be raised In respect to Nor
mons than In respect 10 Methodists,
Presbyterlans, Enlscopalians, Untar-
ians, or l'niversalists-all Of whom We're
numerously represented in the council
az that time; since these women did not
como into the council as 'Murmuns"
but as representatives OF educational
and philanthropic societies.
A few weeks ago a friend showed me
q letter from . member of the eXecu-
tive board of the INSTRUMENTATION
Council Of Women, In which my name
was used IN n new and most surprising
connection The letter stated that II
was generally understood that Senator
. Beveridge Of Indiana was favorable 20
the seating Of Mr. Smoot Of Utah IN
the United States senate and that he
had said that the women Of Indiana
were favorable 10 Smoot, and that he
had further used my name as that Of
leader Of Indiana women who was ia
vorable TO Senator Smoot As there
had never passed n word between SEN
ator Beverage and myself upon this
question, and as this letter ascribed to
me views entirely opposed 10 views
which ! hold and to opinions which |
have steadily expressed upon this qucs-
tion, 1 did not believe that senator
Beveridge had made the remarks as
cribod TO him l. therefore, wrote him
directly quoting from the letter IN qucs-
ton the passages referring to his Views
and TO myself and received from him
the reply anticipated namely--that I'm
the first place as he was acting then In
a judicial capacity, he had no right
either 20 have or 10 express views upon
the question OF Mr.. Shoots eligibility
to the senate and that ms matter Of
fact he had never nscrlhed to the
women OF Indiana or 10 myself, the
views attributed to us In the letter.
! can assure all OF my correspondents
that the women Of Indiana are not only
mot more indifferent % domestic purity
than the women OF the rest of the Coun-
try" but that n there Is any difference
IA the respect for domestic purity en-
tertamed by women OF different states,
should believe that the women Of lndi-
ana would be found 10 have not only
an actual high standard, but a relative
very high standard IN this particular.
and 80 far as my own Views may be
supposed to have any weight I'm lndi
ANA. they are not only IN behalf OF do
nestle purity but ! must confess to
having very rigid standards.
Ordinarily. II light seem an exhibit
ton of vanity to rush into print
with ones views upon this subject, but
| feel that the time has come for an
ayowal Of mine. although ! know that
they VIII Re most unpopular and prob
ably equally so with both "MormOns'
and Gentles, | believe not only In the
m0nogamic as the only form Of mar
rage compa tible with an ideal home.
serving the highest spiritual develops
inent, but further believe that monbg-
annie marriage having once been en-
tered into. should never be dissolved
until dissolved by death 1t was only
by reason OF 'the hardness Of their
hearts that Christ permitted divorce
for the one reason Of physical
infideity I believe that no longer
should THE hardness of their hearts
be used as justification of divorce
under any circumstances. Men and wo-
men counseling az peers might be able
70 devise a system OF marriage and OF
legal separation which would be In har-
mony with the highest civilization but,
from my point Of view. the sort Of sep
aration called divorce" which per-
mlts the remarriage Of either the
wife or husband during the life
of the other could be no feature Of such
n revised system OF our marriage and
separation laws. Probably no one out
side OF n small circle OF family and
social intmates is so familiar with
my opinions upon this subject as are
the leading Mormon women with
several OF whom have not only had
frequent and long conversations upon
the subject, but with at least two OF
whom | have had i'm years past ex-
tended correspondence.
Standing az do as one of the OFF,