The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-06-12

violations of the law. Instead OF dis
countenancins and prohibiting polygamy
when IT was first proclaimed and prac
ticed the Congress remained silent ana
did nothing In that behalf While Con-
gross was thus at least manifesting In
difference, President Fillmore and the
Senate of the United States In september,
1880 gave both recognition and encourage
| ment by the appointment and confrma
tion of Brigham Young, the then head OF
the church, and an open and arowed ad-
be governor Of the Territory of Utah.
When his term of office expired under
this appointment he was reappotnted BY
President Pierce and again confirmed by
| the Senate.
There was no legislation or action of
any kind by Congress on this subject
! until the act OF July |. 1862 which was In
| language, as well as legal effect moth
ing more than a prohibition of bigamy In
| the Territories and other places over
which the United States had jurisdiction.
,, years, plural marriages and polySamous
cohabitation continued In the Territory OF
Utah practically unrestrained and with
out any serious effort on the part OF the
United States to restrict the same.
Finally In response to an aroused pub
lie sentiment, Congress passed the act
of March %, 1889. by which 1t prohibited
both plural marriages and polygamous
cohabitation, but legitimized the children
of all such marriages born prior to the
first day OF January, 1883 Under this act
prosecutions were inaugurated to enforce
its provisions, but IL was soon demon
strated that public sentiment was such
that only partial and very unsatisfactory
success could be secured.
Then followed what is known as the
Edmunds- Tucker Act OF March s. 1857 by
which. among other things, the rules OF
evidence were so changed as to make 1t
less difficult to secure evidence In prose-
cutions for polygamy and polygamous CO.
habttatop. Again by the terms of this
act. all the children born within twelve
months after Its passage were legitimzed.
This statute was upheld by the Supreme
Court OF the United States, and efforts
to prosecute such otfenses were redou-
bled with such success that on the 26th
of the church. Wilford Woodruff issued
what is known as the manifesto of 1890
forbidding further plural marriages. So
far as the testimony discloses there have
haps not more than the bigamous mar
riages during the same period among the
same number of non-Mormons.
The evidence shows that there were at
in the Territory of Utah. This number
was reduced to 800 and some odd families
have removed out of the State OF Utah,
but so far as the testimony discloses tho
great reduction In number has been on
account OF the deaths of the heads OF
these families. 1t will be only q few
years at most until all will have passed
away. This feature of the situation has
had controlling influence upon public
sentiment In the State OF Utah with re-
spect to the prosecutions for polygamous
cohabitation since the manifesto OF 1890
Whether right or wrong. when plural
of polygamy was confined to the cohabi-
tstion OF those who had contracted mar
riages before 1880, and particularly those
who had contracted marriages before the
statutes of 1887 and 1882 the disinclina-
tion 10 prosecute for these offenses be-
came so strong, even among the nom
Mormons, that such prosecutions were
finally practically abandoned.
1t was not alone the fact that II no
further plural marriages were to be con-
tracted polyeamy would necessarily In
but also the fact that Congress, having
by the Statutes of 1882 and 1851 specific
ally legitimizcd the children OF these po-
lygamous marriages, 1t was inconsist-
Bile. in the opinion of even the Nor
mons. to prohibit the father Of such chill
dren from living with, supporting, edu
eating. and caring for, them; but II the
father was thus to live with, support
| educate. and care for the children. II
| seemed harsh and unreasonable to eH
clude from this relationship the mothers
OF the children.
Such are some OF the reasons assigned
| for the lack OF a public sentiment to up
| hold successful prosecutions for polyga
nous cohabitation after 1880. 1t Is unneo
sary to recite others, for 1t is enough Il
| say that whatever the real reason or ex
planation may be, the fact was that after
1890 IT became practically impossible tc
enforce the law against these of1enses
except in fragrant cases.
Such was the situation when the Terri
| tory applied for admission to the Unior
and Congress passed the enabling act o
| July le. 1894, by which the people OF Utah
| In order to entitle them to admission int
| the Union, on terms prescribed by Con
| their constitution a proviso that ''polyga
nous or plural marriages are forever pro
hibited;" not polygamous cohabitation. A
| Will be observed, but only polygamou,
marriages. The testimony shows thai
| there was common understanding boti
| In Congress and Utah that there were mo-
| only to be no moro plural marriages. bu
| that prosecutions for polygamous cohab
| itation had become so difficult that ther,
| was a practical suspension OF them, and
that time was the only certain solution o.
| the perplexine problem.
This sentiment has not only ever sine,
| continued, but with the constant diminu