| OCR Text |
Show POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES IS UTAH. CONCLUDE!. ' Now, sir, permit mo to again call the attention of the house to the latter part of that section and immediately following the portion already recited. It reads : ''And in the meantime shall- be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and secured in the free exercise of their religion," etc "And in the meantime." Whit time is meant? Is it not the time intervening in-tervening between the time tluv shouid become citizens of the United States and the time when they should be admitted ad-mitted as a State into the Union? There can be no other ralioml or in-intejliecnt in-intejliecnt interpretation of that section. Now, then, Mr. Speaker, permit me to read a portion of artirlc sis ol' the Constitution of the United States. I quote : "The constitution and the lawi of the United Stales which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall he made, under the authority of the United State, shall bo the supremo law of the land." If treaty obligations, constitutional provisions and justice prevail, we can not, we dare not, lay a heavy hand upon up-on polygamy until that people are admitted ad-mitted imo this Union a, a State, and when admitted, wo are bound by the law of nations to hold it valid as to the past. The only escape from this is for tho cocmies of polygamy to luaimain that polygamy is no part of the Mormon Mor-mon religion. Liut with all my prejudice acrainst the obnoxious sysk'in, and while I would strike it down at ore M.w, I must say that in my opinion we can as truthfully assert that the revelation to Noah about the flood; to Abraham and Sarah that unto thm a child should be born that should b' (lie heir of a world; to .icharias that Klizabeth should bear a son to be called John; to Mary that she should bear a son to be called Jesus; and the book of the New Testamcut called revelations, arc no part of the Christian religion, as to assert as-sert that the pretended revelations to Joseph Smith, the recognized prophet of that people, and the founder of their religion concerning polygamous marriages as contained in the Hook of Covenants, which I hold iu my hand, is no part of the system of the Mormon religion; as well contend that the Book of Mormon is no part of their religion, as to assert that polygamy is no part thereof. Faith in Joseph Smith as a prjphet of God is the rock upon which Mor-monism Mor-monism stauds. Accepting him by faith as a prophet, how can they do otherwise than accept the revelations of polygamy to him ? If they accept them, do not they at once become a part of their religion ? Sir, polygamy must then from the very nature of their system be held to be a part of the Mormon religion. But why argue the question further? Have we not for nearly thirty years been persecuting them because they do make it a part of their religion? By our own act, then, we are stopped from saying it is not a part of their religion. Sir, if my position be correct, then it follows that the law against bigamy in the Territories, passed by congress July 1, 1S62, is inoperative as to polygamy polyg-amy among tho Mormons; nor can the Territorial legislature abolish it, no more than congress, against the will of that people. T3y the treaty and the constitution it stands above all law un-till un-till Utah .is admitted as a State. One other point upon tho treaty: I contend that, regardless of the laws of Mexico in regard to polygamy, the treaty binds us to recognize it as existing exist-ing at the date thereof. Both governments, govern-ments, knowing at the time that polygamy polyg-amy existed among the Mormon?, and not providing against it by treaty stipulations, stip-ulations, must be presumed to acquiesce acqui-esce therein; and we are forever estopped from interfering with it until the time specified in the treaiy. Bu( may be asked, why pass your bill if t be already legal? I answer, "to put the question beyond dispute," and to stop United States ofliccrs and judges who, alike ignoring plain treaty stipulations stipu-lations and disregarding the great key of legal interpretation, arc guilty ol proceedings in Utah unparalleled in the history of criminal juri-prudeD.ce in prosecuting Mormons for polygamy, etc., under laws passed by themselves, and which to them are harmless, and with their view of polygamy inapplicable inap-plicable to them. Sir. Speaker, England,as remarked, at home is monogamous, while in India In-dia she is polygamous. Wore she to attempt so unreasonable, unnatural, unjust, and cruelan act, so gross au outrage upon criminal jurisprudence, and the long-established rulo of legal interpretation, as to enforce her law of bigamy, adultery, and iowd and lascivious lasciv-ious conduct as applicable to tingle marriages in England, against polygamous poly-gamous marriages in India, she would bring down upon her head the condemnation condem-nation of a civilized and Christian world. That which monarchical England Eng-land would soorn to do is now being I done and sought to be dono in repub-1 licau America, in Utah, by United i States officers and judges. Bigamy to a government tolerating 1 monogamous marriages only is not big-, amy to a covrnment allowing poly-1 gamous; aud I have been startled to hear eminent lawyers and jurisLs assert that bigamy and polygamy are synono-mous. synono-mous. An expression so characteristic characteris-tic of carelessness of thought and mature ma-ture reflection upon so important a subject, is inexcusable and unpardonable. unpardon-able. Bigamy is mmply a marriage by one already married in excess of what the law permiLs. The bigamy of England is not the bigamy of India; the bigamy of our State and United States governments, is not the bigamy of the Mormons. Nor is the bigamy of one polygamous government necessarily the bigamy of another polygamous government. For instance, the Mormons rco-ignize polygamous poly-gamous marriages as a religious rite, which must be celebrated according to the rules of their church. A plurality of marriages in Utah under civil law would he biuaiiiy to the M '"norms while iu another polygamous government, govern-ment, allowing polygamous mairiages by the civi! law only, a plurality of marriages by the church or cec!eMa-ti-cal law would !e bi.:at:i.',i;s. Sir, if ; gentlemen would lay a.-ido prejudice and be governed by principle they could not fall into such an error. My i argument upon this point is equally . appiieiibii1 to" adultery and v? hat, is ' termed "lewdly ana lu-eiviuu-ly a-so-. eiating and cohabiting tucettier'' un- dor the Territorial law of Utah. In I Encland, a man marrying a 'ond wife, the fir-t living, and uudiv'-uved, would be guilty ol bigamy; in India i he would not be. And so in regard to adultrry and lewd and la-civious conduct. In England, a man living with two women at the sunc time j wouid be cuil;y of lewd and lascivious conduct; whi'.e in India he Would not be, uu;e it were with others thin Lis polygamous, wives. Mr. Speaker, the courts and officers of the United States in that Territory not only refue to see and recognize this plain and glaring distinction, but in their eagerness to "hunt down heresy" and willingness to cater to a morbid Gentile, anti-Mormon ieeling have ignored and trampled under foot one of the plainest and most prominent elementary principles of legal interpretation. interpre-tation. Blrickstone says: "The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator leg-islator is by exploring his intentions at ihe time; 1 repeat 'at the time' when the law was made." Adopting this rule, can any one fail to see the interpretation which our courts must give to the laws of that Territory, parsed by that polygamous people, and which, by an unnatural aud unwarranted interpretation, are now being forced against the Mormon people? Blackstone illustrates the principle on this wise. He says: "Thus the law of 1 Edward 1LI forbids for-bids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase pur-chase provisions at Rome; it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider con-sider that the statute was made to repress re-press the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benilices by the Pope were called 'provisions,' we shall sec that the restraint is intended in-tended to be laid upon such provisions only." Now, sir, apply this most reasonable, reason-able, naturl, and just rule of interpretation interpre-tation to the Territorial laws of Utah, and who cannot see that the adultery, lewd and lascivious conduct of our people peo-ple and our laws is not the adultery, adulte-ry, lewd and lascivious conduct of the Mormons or Mormon laws? That it is the correct rule of interpretation and applicable to the Mormon people see 2 Merivalo, English Reports, 150. And yet a law passed by the Mormons themselves them-selves against what they consider adultery, and not what we consider , adultery, and against what they consider con-sider lewd and lascivious conduct, and not what we consider lewd and lascivious lasciv-ious conduct, is to be perverted, twisted, and tortured into an engine of persecution and oppression against themselves. Sir, it is to stop such flagrant and palpable injustice, and so unparalleled an outrage, that my bill was introduced. introduc-ed. Let it be enforced against.Gentiles if they will, but against tho Mormon people never, as long as that treaty is the supreme law of the land, or the rule of legal interpretation is adhered ad-hered to. But suppose that I am in error in regard to facts and the law as well as in my arguments and conclusions, and conceding that the Moimous are not protected by treaty, the law of congress, con-gress, of n it ion, or conquest, or of marriage, and then, sir, upon the ground of "public policy" do I appeal to members of this house to pass the bill. If the greater good will result from its passage, and the greater evil from its non-passage, the interests of society demands its passage, and it would be worse than criminal to refuse it. Mr. Speaker, do we refuse this, thou prosecutions against that people will be urged with all the bitterness of Gentile hatred? Men and women heretofore regarded as honorable, chaste and virtuous will be changed into in-to felons and criminals. Men and women heretofore regarded as respect able will be treated with scorn and contempt. con-tempt. Young ladies and young gentlemen gen-tlemen heretofore regarded as exemplars exemp-lars and ornaments in society and church are to be dishonored, degraded, degrad-ed, branded as bastards, and turned loose upon society as monuments of the prejudice and folly of American statesmanship. A land now blessed with peace, prosperity and happiness is to bo filled with lamentations and mournings, aud not less than twenty-live twenty-live thousand men aud women sent to the penitentiary for living in a state of marriage which their church and system sys-tem of religion have recognized as right in the sight of God for nearly thirty years. A hundred thousand men aud women, husbands and wives, parents and children, to be dishonored and disgraced forevcr,and Utah turned into an American Botany bay. Where is there a man whose heart responds to the cries of suffering humanity hu-manity that would not revolt at even the contemplation of such a econo, much less its sad reality ? Philanthropists, Philanthro-pists, remember that tho peopie aro bono of your bone and flesh of your flesh. A common humanily forbids us bringing upon that people such a . sad calamity. Christians, here is a work fur you; save that people from so much distress. dis-tress. Aro you told that they arc adulterers and adulteresses ? Remem- j bcr that your Lord and Master once said to such a charaoter, who was i about to be mooed to death, "Go; and sin no moro." ! If Uc could i show one such lenity who was willfully guilty, what may you and I and others say to those who . are innocently guilty, if guilty at i all? Mr. Speaker, it is useless to por-1 por-1 tray the good to flow from tho passage I of the bill, or the evils resulting from its non-passage. They are apparent to , all. The evils consequcntjupon its passage pass-age are not a tithe in comparison to the good that will result therefrom. That people, knowing tho prejudices of our people against polygamy, pass-od pass-od a bill through their Territorial legislature legis-lature a few weeks ago calling a convention con-vention to adopt a constitution in harmony har-mony with our views of marriage, that thoy may apply fer dmisj-iou into the Union aH a State, and thus forever settle this vexed question; but here again they arc met by the veto of au over-scrupulous governor, upon the 1 ground that congress has not passed a i law authorising it. Ignorant of the , fact that the power that can authorize I in advance can ratify after the act is performed; and ignorant of the fact that eight States, to wit : Vermont, Teuncbauc, Maine, Arkansas, Michigan, Michi-gan, Florida, Texas, and Iowa, were admitted into the Union without enabling en-abling acts previously passed, he casts another obstacle in the wav of settling the troubles in Ui&h. Sir, shall that people continue to be thus persecuted, or will this congress pass this act and give them immediate relief.'' .No member upn this floor has a const it-.'.ciu' "io.o stroudy prejudiced pre-judiced against that people and polygamy poly-gamy than my own; yet before 1 will ,-uMer one hundred thou-anl men, women wo-men and chiidien to be turned into adulterers, adulteresses and bastards I will take the responsibility to vote lor the j.-as-iae of the bill, and appeal to the magnanimity, generosity and ex aitcd scu-c of justice of my constituents constitu-ents lor a vindication of rrv a:,t. I he-lie vc that could the people of the United States but be brought to , see the subject in iu true light, not a ! day would pa,vs but their prayers, J throtu-h petitions, wouid be hoard in i this hail for the passaire of this or a I similar measure of validation and ob-I ob-I lirir.n. Mr. Speaker, marriage being regulated regu-lated by civil as wcli &a eccCiiaiticai ; and natural law. there can be no impropriety im-propriety in asking congress to pass this bill, as it has unquestioned power to legislate over the Territories. That i congress may validate illegal and -void ! marriages, I refer to the British parliament. par-liament. The most notable cases of which were legalizing the marriages celebrated before justices of the peace in England during the commonwealth; also in India, Lower Canada and Xova Scotia. (Shelford on marriage, 43, 5,i, 61, 62;) also by the legislature of Prince Edward Island, (Ibid 64;) also by Maine. 2 Maine, 2S; also by Connecticut, 4 Connecticut, 209. That the power is generally conceded (1 K., 10 Ed., 512.) That such acts are not retrospective or unconstitutional, (see 2 Peter, 3S0; S Peter, SS; 10 Peter, lKU; ii Peter, 420; 10 Howard, 3lJ5: IT Howard, 4.m; 4 Wall, 172-) In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, permit me to read what Tavid 0. Allen, the celebrated Christian missionary of twenty-five years in India, lias to say upon the subject of polygamous marriages mar-riages iu his book published as late as ISOtj. That devoted man of God says: "Supposing now that any Hindoo, or Mohamedau, or Jew who has several sever-al wives to whom he has been legally marricd, should give evidence of pieiy and wish to make a public profession of Christianity, what shall be done in respect to this polygamy? In contracting contract-ing these marriages he violates no laws of the country and no laws of God, as he understood them, any more than Jacob or Eikanah did in marrying tws wives, or than Pavid did in marrying a yet larger number. "This man canno' divorce any of his wives, if ho would; and it would be great injustice and cruelty to them and to their children if he should. He cannot can-not annul his legal obligations to provide pro-vide for them. He is bound, morally and legally, to support them aud to protect pro-tect them, while professing the Hindoo, j Mohamedan, or Jewiah religion; and his having become a Christian, and embraced a purer faith, will not release him from these obligations, in view of the English government and courts, or of ths native population. Should he put them away, or all but one, they will still be legally his wives, and cannot can-not be married to any other man. And further, they have done nothing to deserve such unkindness, cruelty, and disgrace at his hands." Page 521. Mr. Speaker, if polygamy is contrary con-trary to the Christian religion, and it be the only true religion, as we understand under-stand it, then polygamous people must be deprived of Gospel grace, or subjected sub-jected to the results so graphically pictured by Mr. Allen. I have done. |
