Show j MAKING A DISCOVER I i The EdmundsTucker law promises I 2 to Develop into quite as much of a C national issue as the Mormon problem which it was enacted to I solve The New York Times says editorially t torially J f I The District Attorney of Washington has at last discovered that man of the provisions t provi-sions of the acts relatiug to polygamy bin oJ rc ie frIJ eS 1 amy adutery and kindred crimes which f have been passed in the last four or five f yearj are law for the District of Columbia as I well as Utah and other Territories and he is I now talking about enforcing them for the I improvement of the citys morals The penalties provided in these acts for adultery I and certain other crimes are very severer severe-r But if the authorities at the capital have not f heretofore perceived tint parts at least of these acts ere law for the District the fact has received some attention in other eastern cities and in Utah A section which is declared de-clared to be in force in any Territory or other place over which the United States I have exclusive jurisdiction seems to be law for Washington And why should not a crime committed in the District of Columbia I Colum-bia be as severely dealt with as the same I x crime committed in Utah or Idaho t I i The persistent assertion of the Mormon Mor-mon people has been that the laws enacted en-acted by Congress ostensibly against I I polygamy adultery fornication unlawful un-lawful cohabitation etc were enactments enact-ments against a religion and not in the interest of good morals They have I been warranted in this claim by the manner in which the laws have been interpreted and applied In both the I Edmunds law ot 1882 and the I J Edmunds Tucker act of 1887 it is prescribed pre-scribed that those crimes mentioned 1 shall be punishable in a Territory or other place over which the United I States have exclusive jurisdiction j yet it is a wellknown fact that no attempt has been made to apply the law I in any Territory except one occupied I by Mormons and it is also a fact l that even in those places the idea of applying I plying the law to nonMormons has never entered the heads of the Federal I officials It is not amontr the nrnhRhil r ties that Gentiles are never guilty of unlawful I un-lawful cohabitation of adultery and of fornication In this Territory a very i considerable percentage of the non Mormon men make no pretense of being Josephs and not a few would be insulted in-sulted if charged with being virtuous The Arizona Montana Wyoming Dakota Da-kota New Mexico and Washington Territory nonMormons are not better I than their fellows elsewhere but whoever who-ever heard of the prosecution of a non Mormon in any of those Territories for any of the crimes forbidden in i the acts of Congress 1 What would bethought be-thought of the United States Attorney for Montana who would ask a grand jury to indict a citizen of Butte on the charge of fornication The attorney would probably not be lynched for they dont do that sort of thing up l there as often as they did in olden times but his life would be made miserable for him and he would be glad to resign his commission and make I a home elsewhere The Edmunds Tucker law applies to crime and immoralities im-moralities in Montana quite as much as to the same things in Utah But the funny part of the business is I that Congressmen never thought that when they were legislating against the Mormons they were making laws for the regulation of the morals of the capital city and the i District of Columbia It is also remarkable I remark-able that the law officers of government Should have been five years in learning that a Congressional law was in the books making crimes of things which were not before criminal in the District of Columbia The Mormons have had a meritorious i cry in their charge of persecution and there will be merit in that cry as long as the law which does not distinguish + between Mormons and nonMormonsis J applied only to the former |