OCR Text |
Show t ! ) I WORKING WELL. I ' i ; Three cases for polygamy came before j i ' j the Third District Court yesterday, and I j , i I as two of the defendants promised ; ' f : ' obedience to the law in future and only ! ' ' f one took the full penalty of the law, the 1 , " 1 : . j ! result may be said to be satisfactory. Mr. ; j ! j ; S. W. Seirs clearly and distinctly and '. . , j without any equivocation promised to j; I ' : obey the law in future. Mr. T. O. Angel, ;.' j "; ; Jr., promised the same, but not until the i'jfi ') Court made him define his position. In i! ,j bis case there was a tendency to jesuit- : j ism, but this may have been because he 1 i j : had not made up his mind what to do I ;'' until closely questioned by the Court. : i - I The other case was that of f ' 3 Bishop Hiram B. Clawson. He abso-;; abso-;; i lutely refused to promise obedience to j j i I the law and gave his reasons, which ; ; j j I were, substantially, that he had been as-,; as-,; : . g sociated with the Mormon church for ; J I some forty-five years, and that he had en-j en-j i ; :. tered into his polygamic relations long ; ij years ago when he and his wives were : young ; that now his wives were fast ad- v jj vancing to life's close and already streaks ' j i of grajT show in their hair. For him to ' j i I, cease to associate with them now as their j j husband would be for him to forfeit all ' - I that his course in life had parried fnr him : : j ; in the hereafter, and it was better for : 1 ; him to go to prison than to undo the work of his life. Another reason which he p , gave was that if he were to promise obedi- ' i ence to the law in future he would be 03- i ; I tracised and looked down upon in the j ; community where he resides. Such were 1 , : ' the reasons which Mr. Clawson gave for j j V refusing to obey the law. It is to be re- i ; I grcttedlhat the reasons for refusing to j ,! ! i i obey the law were more powerful j with him than the reasons for ; '; obeying it. Mr. Clawson has long .!:' '4 been a prominent man in the com- ; ; ' ;1 m unity, and Mr. Clawson's family has , I been pointed to as the ideal polygam- : J ous family. The harmony which has pre- ' 1 vailed in his family has been owing en- I tirely to Mr. Clawson and not to the I institution of polygamy. Had Mr. Claw- son been any less particular to be just to J his various families, there would have ; I been the same ill-feeling and discord in I his family that characterise the majority .; of polygamous families. Mr. Clawson's I family has been pointed to by all Mor- .i mons as an example of which to be proud, and in books about Mormonism it has ; ' i been cited as an instance of : 'uat polygamy may be made. : : : Tlicre is one family that is pointed out t ; to strangers as being harmonious and : , ; !! "appy, but what of all the other polyg- , ; , amous families? Is a system which ; ' ,1' prevades the entire Territory to be ' : sustained because it has furnished one ; ; worthy example? Is it not strange that ; i no other family is cited to show the su- I I periority of polygamy? A system that ) can only produce one worthy example is : !! not greatly superior to any other system. . j i j In view of the circumstances surrounding ' j ) Mr. Clawson's case, a great deal of syrn- ,l ' V. pathy will be felt for him personally: i fl but sympathy should not be allowed to ,: ' ' t" set the law at naught. Mr. Clawson is I : not required to cease to support his j. wives and children, but he was required , to cease cohabiting with his wives in the marriage relation, and he was i j :jj required to do this merely because I jj the law forbids it. We honestly and sin- I ' f iij; cerely believe that had Mr. Clawson, and I :l 'X others in the same position as himself. I i !; come forward at the time of the time of I ;i the passage of the Edmunds law, and used i !; all their endeavors to have it oie3'ed and iij' respected, and sought to discourage any ' : ji further violations of the anti-polygamy ' ; ' laws, and had stated their intention to ' that effect to the President, and had , i : jiij asked clemency for past offenses, amnesty ' ' 'i would have been granted them and that ;'" ; Congress would have made some provis- ; ' I j ion for such cases as his, so that his fam- ! , ij, ily relations would not have been dis- ; turbed. But the very contrary of this j f was done. To-gamy was never so urged ; : upon the Mormon jeople as since the j . r a. passage of the Edmunds law, not even in r j ; if the time of what, in Utah, is called the ! ; ;: Reformation. That time was in 1S56, : . j ' ' ll and continued for a year or two. The i ;(! Ieopleof Utah chose their course, and now they are to a small extent reap- ;.; j ' . ing the consequences of that course, i f, &o far as we have leen able ' 'h to learn, never a man in the Mormon . ; j, church, whether laynian or clerical, has :? ever advised the Mormon people to obey ! i'll and rcsiwct the laws passed for the sup-'i-: i'jl pression of polygamy and the discontinu- !j fj ance of unlawful cohabitation. They : f ' 'jl thought to discourage the Government in i i !;, its efforts to enforce the law by more ex- J; tensively breaking it. They were mis- i ' I taken. In the enforcement of the law ; I 'Jl there will doubtless be some apparent ; hardships, but those upon whom they ;j fall, and the public too, should remember f that they never by word or act sought to ' have the law - respected or obeyed. . Things are near a crisis in Utah when the I law will be triumj)hant or will be forever j violated. Which it shall be remains ;j with the Government to say, for now the i game is in its hands. The law sbould be i f vindicated or its violators allowed to go I unmolested. ' Does any one doubt which j j : , choice the Government has made? |