| OCR Text |
Show POLYGAMOUS IHARIIIAGES IN V T A II. Hou. James G. Blair, nieiu'ucr of the houic of rcprcseolatives lioui ibe citrhth coocrcssional district of Mis souri, on the 17th inst. brought up in congress his bill to legalize polygamous polygam-ous marriages in Utah. His speech on tho occasion, a.s. reported in the Congressional Globe of the 18th, will be found of much more than ordinary interest. Wo clip from the Globe: 31 r. Blair, of Jlisouri 3Ir. Speaker, Speak-er, the bill introduced bv me upon the subject of polygamy iii Utah is in the words following: "A bill to legalize polygamous marriages mar-riages in the Territory of Ut-ih, and to dismiss prosecutions in said Territory Terri-tory on account of suck marriiges. Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of (he United States of America in congress assembled. assem-bled. That all marriages heretofore solemnized sol-emnized in tho Territory of Utah, under un-der and in accordance with tlie rules and regulations of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, and children born under such marriages, be and the same arc hereby legalized. Sec. 2. That all prosecutions now pending in any of the courts of said Territory on account of such polygamous polygam-ous marriages be, and the same are hereby, dismissed; and the jurisdiction of said courts over such cases is hereby withdrawn; and it is hereby made the duty of such courts to dismiss all such prosecutions which ha.ro or which hereafter may be instituted, by indictment indict-ment or otherwise, in their courts re spectively. Sec. 3. That this act tball Lc in force from and after its passage." The legalization of polygamous marriages mar-riages in Utah, and the olfspring of such marriages, as will bo peen, is the object of tho bill. Tho subject is not only a perplexing one to solve, in consonance con-sonance with the laws of the land and tbe prejudices of our people, hut it is one of vast importance, nut only to the people of the United States, but to those whom it more directly affects. W'c must recognize the marriage among the Mormon people as legal and in harmony har-mony with the principles of republican government, validate them, or else leave that people to be prosecuted, lined, and imprisoned in the penitentiary peniten-tiary of Utah. Not until recently have they been brought lace to face with the danger that surrounds them, and to see the doom that awaits them. All of them now see that the very foundation founda-tion of society in Utah is about to he broken up, and tho most serious consequences con-sequences visited upon that people. As this difficulty gruwa out of a misunderstanding mis-understanding as to what constitutes marriage, I propose to first treat of that in.stitation. Marriage is said by some to be a natural na-tural contract, or a contract in a state of nature; by others a civil contract, and by others an ecclesiastical contract. For myself, I consider some of those characteristics unmeaning and as creating' creat-ing' a distinction without a difference. Under all those expressions or charac teristics it is but one and tho same contract. Tho - distinction between marriage as an institution or relation and lite contract essential to entering into that institution or relation is entirely en-tirely lost sight of; as also the distinction distinc-tion between tho contract of marriage and tho celebration or solcuiniz.it ion of the contract. Thoy take the powr that simply regulates tho contract and the relation, for the contract itself. Hence, where it is regulated by tho civil power, it is called a civil contract; by the ecclesiastical power, an ecjlcsi-astical ecjlcsi-astical contract; and where neither of those exist, a contract under the law of nature. Mr. Speaker, to suppose that marriage mar-riage or tho onlract of marriage is the creature of either civil or ecclesiastical law is to suppose that civil and ecclesi astical governments antedate marriage. Tho institution of marriago was ordained or-dained by God; and the contract to enter into that institution or relation aroso neccsarily in a slate of nature, before civil or ecclesiastical law existed. No civil or ecclesiastical authority h is tho power to abolish marriage or the contract of marriage. To concede such power would be to defeat the purposes pur-poses of God in the creation of man. All either can do is to regulate them. Where civil law is in the ascendancy, marriage and the contract of marriage arc regulated by it; if the ecclesiastical, ecclesiasti-cal, by it. If the civil power be supreme, su-preme, it may confer the right to regulate reg-ulate it upon the church, and vice versa. Marriage hjing of divine origin, and tlie contract of marriage originating origin-ating in a state of nature, wc mu-t go to the earliest and most ancient histories histo-ries to learn what it is. Mr. Speaker, in a state of nature we find it monogamous monog-amous and polygamous under divine law we find it monogamous and polygamous. polyg-amous. Upon almost every page of the old Bible wc find polygamy written. writ-ten. Not only so, the Bible givi-s us marriage in a more dete.-table form by a hundred fold than in Utah. Utah has its polytauiy; the Bib'e its polygamy polyg-amy and concubinage. By tradition, marriage in a Mate of nature has been polvgaiiKu, and t- ml inucs so to this day; by th divide law we find it com-lutm'in com-lutm'in with Lanavh, thiriy-t ight bundled and .-evenly live years before ('hriM; and needing, for the sake of the argument, lh.it it ceased in the days rf tiu Apoi-ih s, it coveted a !.pai'c of thiriy-nine hundred and twenty-rue years, by the express approval of God. Now, Mr. Sjciker, I am prepared to submit a pro; option to Christians and s:udi-uts of moui philosophy. "It it be true that moral principles never change, and that marriage is bawjd on moral principle; and if it be true that polvi; anions marriages ci-ted lor thirty-nine hundred and twenty five years, or a k?3 p'-iiod. by disapproval of God, is p -.r.xamy moraiiy rirht or wrong .'" Hut polygamy traces itself further down than that. hilc, wc have no express account of it in the New Testament, it is equally true that wc have no express prohibition of it therein. In this opinion I am not only sustained by many divines, but by the author of the New American Encyclopedia, En-cyclopedia, lie says in volume thirteen, thir-teen, page 465, in i-pcaking of polygamy, polyga-my, "There are no po-iiive injunctions , in the Bible against the practice." i 31 r. Speaker, between 1S53 and IS36, only sixteen to nineteen years ai:o, a number of ministers of the gospel, gos-pel, sent 35 missionaries to India, and belonging to the Baptist, Congregational, Congrega-tional, Episcopal, 3Ieihodist and l'res-bytcrian l'res-bytcrian churches, assembled in Calcutta Cal-cutta in convention and declared that polygamous marriages were not contrary con-trary to divine law. (D. 0. Allen on India, page OUl ). Now, then, in view of these facts, who can dogmatically atSrni that polygamy poly-gamy is contrary to the law of God? And who, in view of these facts, can declare that marriage is the union of one man with only one woman in the holy estate ol' matrimony? I ignore from this discussion polyandry, as it principally exists in Thibet. Mr. Speaker, think not that my ramble through the Bible and sacred history is simply to show polygamy not contrary to the law of God; far from it. my object is to elucidate the subject of marriage, and to throw these facts before be-fore the minds of the members of this house that they may sec that our law writers have not defined marriage at all; in other words, that they have taken the "contract" of marriage for "marriage" itself, and havo also confounded con-founded the power that regulates the contract with the contract itself. Civil and ecclesiastical law regulates man, but does not create him. Civil and ecclesiastical law regulates marriage and marriage contract, but creates neither. 3Iarriagc and the contract of marriage exists independent of either. Sir, our law writers upon marriage lay down the law by at.c loci contractus the law of the place where the contract con-tract is made must determine the legality of the marriage; and this rule applies as well to nations where marriage mar-riage is controlled by the ecclesiastical and civil law as the law of nature. By this ju.-t anrcasonablc nile this whole question might be setthd, but for the exceptions made by some with reference lo polygamy. Whcaton, however, in his Law of Natious, page liil, in treating of this subject, makes no exceptions. After staling the law to be that the lex loci con'raclus mast govern, he says : "Infinite confusion and mischief would ensue with respect to legitimacy, succession ani other person an 1 propriety pro-priety rights, if the validit1.- of the marriage contract was not determined by the law of thj place where it was made." That the exception does not obtain as to polygamy in the United Stntascc also 1L Alabama, S6; 5 Humph., (Tennessee,) 13; 10 Mer., (Massachusetts.) (Massa-chusetts.) -157; ill Missouri, 5G1; 30 Missouri, 7:2. And, by note on page lt3, of same author, it will be seen that Hon. Caleb Cushing,in giving his opinion as attorney-general of the United States, November 4, 1 S54, was not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine doc-trine that polygamy is au exception to the general rule that the lex loci con tractus must govern marriige. lie says, "perhaps" it is. TO RE CONTI.NVHD.J j |
