Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-03-04
LAW AND TESTIMONY.

II Is not to be wondered at that the
people OF the East, and even many
members of Congress, are surprised at
the open avowals OF President Joseph
i. Smith concerning his family rela-
tons. But II Is remarkable that news
papers here, that have published time
and again the charge that The gentle
man was living with his plural wives,
and that have discussed the matter
edltorlally, now pretend to be astound-
ed at the disclosures OF the fact II Is
also astonishing that they should deny
the general understanding concerning
the difference between polygamy, !. g,
the contracting OF plural marriages,
and the living with plural wives In the
marriage relation
These matters have been discussed by
the Salt Lake press so often that the
subject has become hackneyed and to
many readers really offensive. And
now, to try to make out that President
Smiths explanation Is something new,
and startling, and contrary to the spirit
and letter Of pledges given by Utah to
obtain statehood" Is an exhibition Of
dense ignorance or wilful peryerslty.
The subject was threshed out In the
constitutional convention at which the
Constitution Of the state OF Utah
was framed. Tho clause In It concern.
ing the vexed question was adopted, az
ter a full discussion Of the very point
presented by President Smith before the
committee on Wednesday.
This matter was also clearly UNDER
stood when the Enabling Act was
passed by Congress. Here is the only
reference therein to the subject. PRO.
vided, That polygamous or plural mar
rtages are forever prohibited" PresI-
dent Smith was exactly right, The
Constitution contained this provision In
the same language 1t was 50 Inserted
with full undertaking that It meant
just what 1t said and nothing more. 1t
was the only pledge" on this matter
either asked Of or made by Utah. TO
plead Misunderstanding of that, at this
late date, Is to confess dcplorable lg.
norance To say, too, that this was not
intended 70 stop at the point indicated
ana to 80 no further is to ignore the
entire discussion OF the matter In Con-
gress and in the convention.
The hroadminded and liberal people
here and elsewhere who have under
stood the situation, as President Smith
ayowed, have let alone the family con,
Germs OF people who contracted plural
marriages previous to statehood, OF
previous to the manifesto, That is wei
known TO claim to the contrary Is
farclcal It not mendaclous. The ignor'
anco Of the eastern public ought not "a
be emphasized by the pretended sur.
prise and sneerlng comments Of Utah
papers that ought to, II they do not
know better than they talk
one morning paper the Tribune, try.
ing TO be smart and censorous, talks
about President Smiths remarks con.
corning n hearing before the master
IN Chancery ton the suit for the Tenn
pie lot at independence. That IL q
sample of real ignorance both Of fact
and Of principle, There was no suit OF
the kind by this Church about the TEN.
pie lot at Independence, So In regard
TO the same papers assertions about
prosecutions for unlawful oohabItation
II says;
THE public attorney who prosecuted
too vigorously would never be elected
to any office again, the Judge who
might be too severe might IA wei
never be a candidate again, the Nor,
mon Juror who consented TO a verdict
that was resisted by the accused
would likely be dlsfellowshlped ant
perhaps ruined the witness too jealous
would be under the BAN
Ia that so? How about Judge Ian,
and Judge Baskln? Were there evel
any more severe judges or lawyers OF
this very question than they and hav,
they not been candidates again" ans
elected TO the bench2 But why shoulC
an attorney prosecute such cases "to'
vigorously or Judge be too Sc
vere?' That kind OF procedure wal
very common In the old times Of bitter
ness and vengeance, but Is not popula
now in these parts, although there an