The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-03-27
THOUGHT 1T WAS LEGAL?

] The genial Ed Loose, who so benig-
nantly sheds a reflected light OF moral
ity upon Col Looses Peet, does not
seem to be particularly careful about
| the logic or lack OF logic which char
| acteriZes the statements made by Col.
Loose Peet to Eastern newspapers in
the attacks made upon the good women
OF the country for opposing Reed
Smoot
| Probably the estmable Col Loose
| thinks that the radiant virtue which
enanates from MIN is sufficient to
sanctlfy any utterance, however other
| wise malicious or untrue,
For instance Col. LooSe's Peot, in
| an article derogatory of the movement
| against Reed Smoot by the noble wives
| and motners OF the land, makes this
statement through a Philadelphia
newspaper;
plural wives previous to September, 1890.
| are living with them now. Every honest
man who made VOW to his plural wltc
when he thought he had n legal right TO
would not be a man To forsakc her and
her children just because some one told
him to-
That is the kind OF stun that Col,
Loose backs with his bluff offer Of SlS,-
| COO Could mor> monstrOus misrepre-
sentatIon be offered to the people OF the
United States in the same number OF
words?
The polygamjsts who married their
plural wives previous to September.
1890. of their own volition covenanted
TO God Almighty, to the Mormon peo-
pie, and to this Nation, that they would
obey a purported revelation from heaY-
Ell forbidding the further continuance
of their plural-marrage relations. That
the manifesto meant a cessation of po-
lyeamous living as vel. as a complete
inhibition Of further polygamous ccre-
monies. is proved by the sworn testi
mony of the leaders OF the church, is
proved by the petition for amnesty
signed by the hierarchy, is proved by
the action Of several of the leading
men who placed their households In
order to conform TO the law and the
covenant
But the assertion Of Col Loose's
representative that the polygamous
| marriages were effected in the Mormon
| church at a time when the polygamists
| thought they had legal right to take
more wives than one, is piece of COW
ardly mendacity and evasion quite
worthy of the source from which il
| emanated Their rever was a time.
from the foundation Of polygamy in
the Mormon church until today. when
| the practice was not In violation of
| law, and known To be in violation OF
law by the men who took plural wives
and the men who soeTnized the mar
riage3. TO prove that the illegal!ty Of
| the practice was understood by all con-
| sidered, one has but 10 go to the record
| and discover that In Nauyoo, where
| poly gamy was practiced, the very par
ticipants uhe men and the women al
ready married into polygamy) testified
! publicly that they had never heard of
| any such doctrine or practice. AS late
as 1852. when polygamy was the domi-
mating factor In the social life of Utah,
1t was So we'll kncwu to be against the
| law-the common law governing this
| country-that the most explicit official
| denlalS were MADE OF the pTICllCC.
! After 1862 It was against the statutory
| law of the United States governing
Territories; ana practically all the
| marriages to which Col. Loose's
| Peet makes reference, were effected
after 1862 under a brazen pretcnse that
i the law was unconstitutional That
was the most shallow and vicious of
| arguments. because n murderer might
| excuse himSelf on the same ground that
| the law was unconstitutional which
| prohibited his crime and provided d
| punishment; train robber might do
| the same a law Is constitutional In
| this country until the Supreme Court 4
| declares II is not, ana II is binding
| upon all citizens alike until that time.
| But even that poor excuse vanished,
For In 1878. twelve years before the
| ScDtcmbcr of 1890 to which Col.
| Loose's Pect makes reference, the Su
preme Court of the United States de-
clared the anti-polygamy act to be In
| accord with the fundamental law of
this country.
What miserable begging of the