OCR Text |
Show THOUGHT IT WAS LEGAL? The geninl Ed Loose, who so benlg-nantly benlg-nantly sheds a reflected light of morality moral-ity upon Col. Loose's Peet, does not seem to be particularly careful about the logic or lack of logic which characterizes char-acterizes the statements made by Col. Loosens Pect to Eastern newspapers In the attacks made upon the good women of the country for opposing Reed Smoot, Probably the estimable Col. Loose thinks lhat the radiant virtue which emanates from Dim is sufficient to sanctify any utterance, however otherwise other-wise malicious or untrue. For instance. Col. Loose's Pect, in an article derogatory of the movement against Reed Smoot by the noble wives and mothers of tho land, makes this statement through a Philadelphia newspaper: Tho few polygamlsts who married their plural wives previous to September, 1S90, are living with them now. Every honest man who made a vow to hla plural wife when he thought he had a legal right to would not bo a man to forsako her and her children just because some one told him to. That is the kind of stuff lhat Col. Loose backs with his bluff offer of $13,-C00. $13,-C00. Could a mors monstrous mlsrepre-' mlsrepre-' sentntlon be offered to the people of the United States in the same number o words? The polygainJsts who married their 1 plural wives previous to September, 1S90, of their own volition covenanted to God Almighty, to the Mormon people, peo-ple, and to this Nation, that they would obey a. purported revelation from heaven heav-en forbidding the further continuance of their plural-marriage relations. That the manifesto meant a cessation of polygamous po-lygamous living a8 veil aa a complete inhibition of further polygamous ceremonies, cere-monies, is proved by the sworn testimony testi-mony of the leaders of the church, is proved by the petition for amnesty signed' by the hierarchy, is proved by tho action of several of the leading men who placed l heir households in order to conform to the law and the covenant. But the assertion of Col. Loose's representative that the polygamous marriages were effected in the Mormon church at a time when the polygamlsts thought they had a legal right to take more wives than one, Is a piece of cowardly cow-ardly mendacity and - evasion quite worthy of the source from which it emanated. Then? never was a time, from the foundation of polygamy in the Mormon church until today, when the practice was not In violation of law, and known to be in violation of law by the men who took plural wives and the men who solemnized ihe marriages. mar-riages. To prove that the illegality of the practice was understood by all considered, con-sidered, one has but lo go to the record and discover that In Nauvoo, where polygamy was practiced, the very participants par-ticipants (the men and the women already al-ready "married Into polygamy) testified publicly that they had never heard of any such doctrine or practice. As late as 1S52, -when polygamy was the dominating domi-nating factor In the social life of Utah, It was so well knewtv to be against Ihe law the common law governing this country that the mcst explicit official denials were made of the practice. After 1362 It was against the statutory law of the United States governing Territories; and prnctlcally all the marriages to which Col. Loose's Peet makes reference, were effected after 1SG2 under a brazen pretense that the lav was unconstitutional. That was the most shallow and vicious of arguments, because a murderer might excusa hlmcclf on the same ground that the law was unconstitutional which prohibited his crime and provided a punishment; a train robber might do the same. A law Is constitutional In this country until the Supreme Court declares it Is not, and it is binding upon all citizens alike until that time. But even that poor excuse vanished. For In 1S7S, twelvo years beforo the September of 1890 to which Col. Loose's Peot makes reference, the Supreme Su-preme Court of the United States declared de-clared the anti-polygamy act to be in accord with the fundamental law of this country. What a miserable begging of the question by the sanctified emissary of chaste nnd ornale Col. Loose, when Peet says that these polygamlsts would not forsako their wives nnd children because some one told them to! The chl?f polygamlsts were In exile or In prison; they were physically separated from their wives nnd their children; they voluntarily besought mercy from tho Government: they promised on their honor that They would obey the law. The only excuse which they nave ever given for n violation of the compact com-pact Is 1 hat horrible one uttered by Joseph. Jo-seph. F. Smith, to quote which Is an Insult to wominklnd. Col. Loose must be proud of his chosen representative. |