| OCR Text |
Show POLYOAMOIB MARRIAGES IN I'TAII. 1 CONTINUED, j It then clearly appearing, Iroiu s-a-cred and divine history, that marriage is the union of one man with one or more women in the holy estate of matrimony, ma-trimony, and taking the law to be a? laid down by Whcaton and the Alabama, Ala-bama, Tennessee and Missouri cases cited, that the lex loci contractus mu.st govern, whether it bo the law of nature, na-ture, civil or ecclesiastical, we are bound to hold polygamous marriages among the Mormons at the dale ol'our treaty with Mexico, and since, valid. I now propose to notiw the law of conquest, or acquisition, a.s governed by the law of nations. 1 lay down the law to be that when a whole nation ie conquered, and its territory ceded to the conquoror, the laws of the conquered con-quered nation remain intact, as well as its whole machinery of government, until they are chanced, modiGed, or abolished by the conqueror; and where a part of its territory with the people therein only are ceded, a-; in the ea.se of Mexico to tho United States, then that the laws and eudoius of the conquered con-quered government at the date oi' the treaty control the rihis, privileges, and immunities of the people, and their relation to each other, until the government of the conqueror interpose its law?. (Wheaton, Law of Nations, 4o', 2 Merivale's English Reports, l-'iti; 4 Modern English Reports. 2iiii; I Ja--cob and Walker's English Reports, i;"; and note "A.") Then, sir, whether t lie laws of Mexico Mex-ico expressly recognized polygamy, or whether they failed to prohibit iL at the date of the treaty, is immaterial. Iu cither case, the law of naiions governing gov-erning conquest or acquisition mnkeg the polygamous marriages of the Mormons Mor-mons at the date of the treaty with the United States legal and valid. To say that had the Mexican laws expressly recognized polygamy at the date of the treaty we would have been bound under the law of nations to recognize the polygamous pol-ygamous marriages of that people then existing, and then to say that wo arc not bound to recognize them because the laws of Mexico did not expressly recognize them, is, in view of the fact that their polygamous marriages were known almost over tbe world at the time, but denying justice upon (lie sheerest technicality, and of which any lawyer would be ashamed to avail himself him-self in the courts of our country. Shall the legislative and judicial departments of our government do that which an honorable, high-minded practitioner at the bar would scorn to do ? England, in dealing with her conquered con-quered provinces iu India aud elsewhere, else-where, does not only sustain me in e general principle of the law of nations, but as with reference to its special application to polygamy also. England En-gland at home is monogamous, while England abroad, as in India, is polygamous. polyga-mous. Sir, conceding the law of nations na-tions to be as I have stated, then, outside out-side of and uncontrolled by treaty stipulations stip-ulations this government had the now-er now-er and right one year after the date of the treaty with Mexico to have prohibited prohib-ited future polygamous inarr'wges among the Mormons. It failed to do it; but acquiesced in them until July I, 1S02, (and longer, as 1 will show,) and now is taking advantage ol' its own laches, la-ches, of its own criminal neglect, to persecute or sutler thai people to be persecuted and harassed. Mr. Speaker, our neglect to prohibit prohib-it polygamy among that people ibr thirteen thir-teen years amouuts to a confirmation of it under the law of nations. In the absence of civil law the law of nature and ecclesiastical law controls. Suppose that we were to cede that Territory to England, and the Mormons should remain re-main on it, and wo havi: z recognized polygamy for thirteen years, would uot Lhe law of nations compel England to recognize existing marriages as legal and valid? I assert most positively that it would, and have the example of Eugland with her conquered and ceded provinces and the decisions of her eotwts already cited to sustain me. Shall England be more regardful of the obligaiions imposed uunn her by the law oi' nations and public policy than the United States, or shall England Eng-land be more generous and indulgent to her polygamous citizens in India than the United Stales to her polygamous polyg-amous citizens in Utah? Sir, I shall now proceed to another point in the line of my argument. The treaty to which I have referred, between be-tween the United Slates and SUcxico, was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo, February -rid, IS-lS. Uy the provi.-ions of that treaty tho Mexicans upon the ceded territory had one year from its date to continue citizens of Mexico ;and in ease of a failure to do so they then became citizens of the United States. As stated, the United States passed no law interfering with polygamy until July J, 1SC2; and that was against bigamy big-amy simply, without defining it. IS'ow, then, 1 wish to call the attention atten-tion of gentlemen upon this floor to two remarkable phenomena in the history audcgal jurisprudence of our government. Sir, what law controlled marriages in Utah from the date of the treaty up to one year next thereafter, tho time when the people became citizens of the United States government? Was it the law of Mexico or the United States, or was it the law of nature or ecclesias tical? From one year after the date of the treaty up to July 1, IStili, did the civil law of the United States, the ecclesiis-Lical, ecclesiis-Lical, or law of nature control marriages in Utah? When these questions are answered, it seems to me that minds of gentlemen will not be free from doubt as to the propriety of the present policy pursued toward the Mormons. From the date of the treaty to the expiration of one year thereafter they must be regarded as in a transition state, and without civil law. From one year after the date of the treaty to July 1, IStVJ, they mut be regarded as without any law upon the subject of marriage other than their own ecclesiastical ecclesi-astical law. If the ecclesiastical law of the Mormons Mor-mons did net control marriages from the date of the treaty to the expiration of one year thereafter, then monogamous monogam-ous marriages during that period were invalid; as also from tho expiration of the one year next after the treaty up to July I, lN.l.and in fact to the present day, (of none but ecclesiastical marriages have been celebrated amoug the Mormons. If we 1k.vo to tuee monogamous marriage?, dmlng thote periods to the ecclesiastical law for validity, why not polygauiuus? It' lhe monogamous- are not valid, then we should validate them, why not while we are at it validate vali-date the polvcamou:.' But, Mr." Speaker, if f entlemcu, to escape ecclesiastical marriacst prefer the law of nature, then I respectfully refer them to the decisions of the supreme su-preme C'lurts of Alabama, Tennessee and Missouri, declaring marriages among the Indians under the law of ' nniure, va'i l. ill Alabama, S-G; 5 I Humph., i Tennessee,) 1; 23 Missouri, cdi 30 Missouri, V2.) That the marriages under the law of nature among the Indians and others have been and are polygamous there can be no question; and that the tribes to which thelndians belonged involved in the decisions of the supreme courts of Alabama, Tennessee, and Missouri, allowed marriages in their character, polygamous, is sustained by history and the facts developed in those cases. 1 The savages are a law unto them-! selves. The Mormons, as to marriage, j have been a law unto themselves. If the marriages under the law of nature among the savages are regarded as ' legal and valid by our courts, why not treat tho marriages under the law of nature among the Mormons with like impartiality? Whether, then, regarded re-garded as marriages under the law of nature, or the ecclesiastical or law of conquest, or tho lex loci contractus, they must be held to be legal and valid. But, sir, there is another point in connection with this subject which I shall now police, and which, aside from every other consideration, in my opinion, settles this whole matter forever. for-ever. Iu section one, article nine, of our treaty with Mexico, we expressly stipulated stipu-lated that the people upon the ceded territory should be "protected iu the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and scoured in the free exercise exer-cise of their religion without restriction." restric-tion." (United States. Statutes-at-Uarge, page yJO.) The treaty says that the Mormons shall be secure in the free exercise of "their religion." I empbasizo tho expression ex-pression "their religion;" and not only that, but that treaty says they shall be protected in the free exercise thereof "without restriction." The question for us to determine at this point is "what was the religion of the Mormons at the date of that treaty?" As applicable to religious denominations Webster defines religion to be "any system of faith and worship; wor-ship; as the religion of the Turks, of Hindoos, of Christians; true or false religion." The Mormon religion, at the time of the treaty, was simply their system of faith and worship. What was that system, and by whom shall it be proven? Is there any other way to prove it than by the system itself it-self as published to the world, and by the statements aud declarations of its leading men ? Now, sir, let us take these, as is done with every other religious denomination, denom-ination, and what will be the result? Will it not as certainly lead to the establishment es-tablishment of polygamy as a part of the system of Mormon religion as that the Uhiistian religion will lead to faith in Christ ? Christians accept Christ as their prophet; what he said is part of their religion. Mormons accept Joseph Jo-seph Smith as their prophet; what be said is part of their religion. Does uot the system of Mormon religion clearly show that polygamous marriages were revealed to Joseph Smith as their prophet, and that as their prophet he established it among them as a religious rite? Wore the whole Mormon brotherhood called to testify, they would with one accord proclaim polygamy polyg-amy a part of tlieirreligion. By whom else shall it be proven ? Shall we take a Jew to prove the Christian religion, a Catholic to prove the Protestant re-ligisn, re-ligisn, or vice rem; a Methodist to prove the Presbyterian, or a Presbyterian Presbyte-rian to prove the Baptist religion, or eke vrrs'i Would the members of those churches like to have their religion reli-gion proven by their adversaries ? Would they submit to it ? Who ever heard of such a thing? Adopting Adopt-ing the universal rule of allowing allow-ing the members of a church to prove its faith by its, published writings and declarations of leading men, aud polygamy polyg-amy is clearly established as part of the Mormon religion. Mr. Speaker, do we not know as a matter of fact that, the very reason why Mormonism has been so obnoxious to our people is because that they make polygamy a part of their religion? I repeat, "their religion, "andwould call the attention of the members of this house to tbe difference dif-ference between the "Mormon religion" re-ligion" and the "Christian religion;" and between a "true" aud "false" religion. re-ligion. 1 am uot here to provo what the Christian religiou is; nor am I hero to prove that the Mormon religion is the Christian religion, or that the Mormon religion is a true or lalse religion. re-ligion. My enquiry is, and all I am proposing to show is, that polygamy is a part of the Mormon1 system of re-liiou. re-liiou. Now, then, sir, in oouuection with these remarks I propose to read in full section one, article nine, of the treaty between Mexico and Lhe United States, (a part of which has already been noticed). I quote: "Section 1. That Mexicaus who fail to elect to continuo citiaens of the Mexican government shall be incorporated incorpor-ated into the Union, and be admitted at tho proper time (to bo judged of by the congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens citi-zens of tho United States according to the principles of tho constitution; and in the meantime shall bo maintained main-tained and protected in the free enjoyment en-joyment of their liberty and property, and secured in tho free exercise of their religion, without restriction." United States Statutcs-at-jLargc, pago (J.JO. Mr. Speaker, is there a member of this house who is not in iailh a Mormon, but will say at once that the Mormon religion is a false religion; that it is a delusion? id not the men representing represent-ing the United States and Mexico in signing that treaty believe the same thing; and did they not know when they signed it Lhat religious and non-religious non-religious people in tho United States outside Moruiondoin had long previous thereto branded it as false? And yet, in the face of the fact, they bound this government by solemn treaty obligation obliga-tion to secure to that people tho free exercise of their religion. Whether Jew, Christian, Mohammedan, Pagan, Turk, Hindoo, or Swedenborgian, true or false, we are bound to protect them in the free exercise thereof . The question now arises as to when that protection ceases. Sir, with the section which 1 have read before me I unh- silatingly affirm that we are bound by that treaty to protect them until they are received into this Union as a State. What means this language in that section: "Shall be incorporated into the Union and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by congress; to the CDjoymont of all rights," A;. 1. I hold "shall be incorporated into in-to tbe Union" must be held to mean that at the end of the year from the date of the treaty they were to become citizens of the Union or United States. 2. That the language "and bo admitted ad-mitted at the proper time (to be judged ol by corjgressj to the enjoyment of ail rights," dec, must be held to mean admission ad-mission into the Union as a State I TO IiE CGXTINVKD ..' |
