Show amm IN mn house of representatives yash ing ingmond C saturday febert february r 17 J kr mr BLAIR 0 mr speak er the bill introduced by me ine lne tl upon on the subject of polygamy is in inthe lathe the words following A bill to to legalize polygamous marriages in the territory of utan utah and to dismiss in said sald territory on account of luch such marriages B 2 J WF b sum tum dit d dig i t orr orp glnn af f ha rha tha sta states ca of airan ca in 1 I coigne Coig Co ime te that all marriages marr loees cereto fore in the nry dry of under ena ana in accordance accard anc ane e with i be tres rues and regula ilie lile 0 church of christ of latter bitter day bains baans Elal nig nil and children born under such bunh marriages ar bo ana and he same are lerouy beroby legalized SEC 2 that all prosecutions now sow g in any of the courts of inid territory on account of buch such polygamous marriages b and the same are hereby the of sald baid courts over gucu sucu such cases lahert Is hereby by withdrawn and it la hereby ade nade the duty of E u ch courts to dismiss all such prosecutions prosecution wh which ich have or which here bere hereafter after may be instituted by indictment or otherwise in thair their courts respectively s ively gla lla 8 3 that this act shill shall be in force from and after its passage the legalization of polygamous marriages in Uta band hand the spring offspring of such marriages as will be seen is as the object of the bill the subject is not only a perplexing one to solve in consonance with the laws of the land and the prejudices olour of our people buu but it is one of vast Import importance anoe snoe not only to the citizens of the united states butto but bul to those whom it more mono directly affects vvo vye must recognize the marriages among that thai mormon oll oil people as legal and in harmony with the principles of republican government validate them or elbe eibe leave that peo pleto be prosecuted fined and im am prison edin the penitentiary of utah not until recently have they been brought face td rf face fice with the danger that surrounds bunds them and to seethe doom that awaits them allot all ali of them now bee see that the very foundation of society in utah is about to be brok broken up and the most serious consequences visited upon that people As this dim culty grows out of u misunderstanding as to what constitutes marriage apro I 1 pro pobe to first treat of that institution marriage is said bald by some to be a natural contract or a contract in the tho state of nature by others a civil contract and by others an ecclesiastical contract for myself I 1 consider some of those thosa characteristics te unmeaning and as creating a distinction without a difference under all those expressions or characteristics it is but one and the same contract the distinction between marriage as an institution ution or relation and the contract essential to entering into that institution or relation is entirely lost sight 0 of fl as aa also the distinction between the co contract n of marriage and the celebration or solemnization of the contract they take the tho power that simply regulate regulates 3 the contract and the relation for the contract itself hence where it is regulated gul gui aled by the tho civil power it is called a cly by the ecclesiastical power an ecclesiastical contract and where neither of these exist a contract under the law of nature mr speaker to suppose that marriage or the contract of marriage is the creature of either civil or br ecclesiastical law is to suppose that civil and ecclesiastical governments anted antedate ate marriage the institution of marriage was ordained by god and the contract to enter into that institution or relation arose necessarily in a state of nature before civil calill 0 or r ecclesiastical law existed no civil or ecclesiastical authority has the power to abolish marriage or the contract of marriage to concede such power would but be to defeat the purposes of god in of man all either elther can do dd Is ia to regulate them where civil law la Is in the ascendancy marriage and the 6 contract of marriage are reg regulated ulsted by it ii 11 the ecclesiastical by byis it if the civil power be supreme it may confer the right to regulate it upon the church andries and vicc udes vies vice verga versa marriage being of divine origin and the tho contra contract CA of marriage originating in a state of nature we must go to the earliest and most ancient histories to learn what it is mr speaker in a state of nature we find it monogamous and polygamous under divine law wo we find it it monogamous and polygamous upon almost every ayery page of the old bible bibie we find polygamy written not only so the bible gives us marriage in a more amore detestable form bya bys by a hundred fold than in utah utah has its polygamy the bible its polygamy and c concubinage on cub inage by tradition marriage in a et atef nature has been polygamous k d finues so to this day by the divine law we find it commencing with lamech thirty eight hundred and seventy five years before christ and conceding for the sake of the argument that it ceased in the days of the apostles it covered a space of thirty nine hundred aud nud twenty nive ive years by the express approval of god gd now mr speaker I 1 am prepared to submit a proposition to christiana and students or of moral asir if it be true that monal moral principles never change and that marriage la Is based on moral principle and it be e true that fOr thirty nine hundred and twenty five years or a less period by the up approval of god is polygamy polygamy roly poly gamy morally rig nig right t t or wrong but ut polygamy traces itself further down than that while we have no express account of it edthe in the now testament it is 13 C equally bally true that we havon have no express prohibition of it therein in this opinion I 1 am not only sustained by man mad many Y divines but by the author of the new american encyclopedia he bays says in thirteen page in speaking of polygamy there are no positive injunctions lice at in the bible against the practice mr speaker between 1853 1653 and 1865 only sixteen to nineteen years ago a number of of the gospel sent as mission missionaries dries to india and belonging to the baptist congregational episcopal metho methodist dist and presbyterian churches assembled in calcutta in convention and declared that polygamous marriages were not contrary to divine law D 0 allen alien on india page gol goi now then in view of these facts who can dogmatically affirm that polygamy Is ia contrary to the law of god and ano of in view of these facts can beclar declare that marriage is the union of one ma man with ith only one woman in the holy estate of matrimony I 1 ignore from this discus sion slon polygamy as it principally exists in mr speaker think not hot ait wit my ra ramble i tn through the bible and sacred history Is ia 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 the minds of the members of this house that they ma may see that our law writers have not defined mariage marriage at all another in other othen words that they have havo taken the contract of marriage for ima marriage i r itself and have also confounded the power that regulates the contract with the bontra contract adt itself civil and ecclesiastical law regulates man but does not create him civil and ecclesiastical ins las law regulates marriage and marriage cori corl contract tract but creates neither marriage and the contract of marriage exist independent of either sir our law writers upon marriage lay down dowa the lav lay lavt lavy to bo be that the lex loci contractus actus the thel law of the place where the contract is made hikade must determine the legality of the marriage and this rule applies aswell to nations where marriage is controlled oled by the ecclesiastical and civil la law w as tho the law of nature by this just and reasonable rule this whole question might be settled but for the exceptions made by some with reference to polygamy wheaton however in his hla law of nations page in treating orthis of thib this subject makes no except exceptions lons ions after stating the law to be that the lez lex loci contractus actus must govern he says infinite confusion contusion and mischief would e ensue with respect to legitimacy succession and other personal and propriety rights it cheval the validity ol of the marriage contract was not determined by the law of the place where it was made 1 i that the exception does not obtain as to polygamy in the united states see also 11 alabama 5 humph tennessee i nes see 13 10 met massachusetts 23 missouri 30 missouri 73 72 and by note on page of same bame author it will bo be been that hon caleb Cu cushing shing ahing in giving his opinion as attorney general of the tho united states november 4 1854 was not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that polygamy Is ia an exception to the general rule that the lez lev loci must govern marriage he bays hays perhaps it is it then clearly appearing from sacred and divine history that marr niage riago is ia the union of one man with one or more women in the holy estate of matrimony and taking the law to be as laid down by wheaton and the alabama tennessee and missouri cases cited and that the levlock lex loci contractus confra contra actus olus must govern whether it be the law of nature civil or ecclesiastical we are bound to hold polygamous marriages among the mor mons at the date of our treaty with mexico and since valid I 1 now propose to notice the law of conquest or acquisition as governed by the law of nations I 1 lay down dow ilai 1111 the e law to be that whole nation is conquered and audits ite its te territory atory ceded to the conqueror the laws of the conquered nat nation on remain intact as well as its whole machinery of government until they are changed modified or abolished by the conqueror and where a part of its territory with the people thereon ony only are ceded as in the case of lexi dexl ca coto to the united states then that the laws aird customs of the conquered government at the khe date dale of the tho treaty control the righted privileges and immunities muni ties of the people and their relations to each dach the Bo bokern vern venn ment of the co conqueror i n berot its lawe lawior nations 64 54 2 meriva merlva meri Merl vales ea js englesi Eng lisi Te report reports ports J 4 arod modern englina reports 21 I 1 1 yaco taco b and walkers english and note then str mir whether thelama of mexico expressly recognized polygamy oly garny br or whether they failed to prohibit it at the date of the treaty is immaterial jn n either case the law of nations governing Co enquest conquest or acquisition makes mikes the polygamous marriages of the tho cormons mormons at tuo tho 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 babions nat bat ions lons to recognize the tho marriages of that people then exa existing and then to say that we are not bound to recognize them because the tho laws of mexico did not expressly recognize them is in view of the fact that their thoin polygamous marriages were known almost over the world at the time but denying justice upon the sheerest she erest technicality and of which any lawyer would be ashamed to avail himself 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 todo to do england in dealing with her conquered provinces in india and elsewhere does doe snot not only sustain me in the general principle of the law jaw ladof of nations but as with reference to its spenial application to polygamy also england at home while england A abroad road as in india is lib polygamous sir don gon conceding ced ing the ladof law of nations to be as I 1 have stated then outside of and an dun uncontrolled controlled by treaty stipulations this government had the power and right one year after the date of the treaty with mexico to have prohibited future polygamous marriages among the tho mormons cormons Mor mons it failed to do doit dolt it but acquiesced in them until july 1 and no longer as I 1 will show and now Is taking advantage of its own laches of its own criminal neglect to persecute or suffer that people to be persecuted and harassed mr speaker our neglect to prohibit polygamy among that people for thirteen years amounts to a confirmation of it under the law of nations in the absence of civil law the law of nature and ecclesiastical controls suppose that we were to cede that territory to england and the cormons mormons should remain on it and we having recognized polygamy for thirteen years would not the law of nations compel england to recognize existing marriages as legal and valid I 1 assert most positively that thab it would and have the example of england with her conquered and ceded provinces and the decisions of her courts already cited to sustain me bhail shall england bo be more regardful of the dobli obligations t 0 ns imposed upon her by the ilaw law 0 o of f n nations atlo atio ns and arid public policy than the united states or shall shill england be more g generous onerous and M A 4 indulgent to her poly polygamous gain garn citizens sin bin in india than the united 8 states ta test ta 6 her polygamous citi bens in utah 2 sir sr I 1 mchall now proceed to another point in 11 th the line of my argument the treaty to which JC have referred between the united states and mexico was signed at Gd guada Gnada adalupe guadalupe lupe iupe hidalgo february rua nua ry 2 1848 by the provisions of that treaty the tho mexicans upon the ceded territory had one ohie year from its date to elect to continue citizens of mexico and in case of a failure to do so BO they then became citizens of the united states As aa stated the united states passed no law interfering with polygamy until july 1 1862 and that was against bigamy simply without defining it now then I 1 wish to call the attention of gentlemen upon this floor to two remarkable phenomena in the history and legal jurisprudence of our government sir what law controlled marriages in utah from the date of the treaty up to one year thereafter the time when the people became citizens of the united states government was it the law of mexico or the united 1 states ecclesiastical or was it the law of n nature a ture or 01 from one year after the date of aha the treaty up to july 1 1862 did the civil law of the united states the ecclesiastical as or the law of nature control marriages in utah when thebe thebo questions are answered it seems tome to me that the minds oft of t gentle gentie men will no noh not it be free from doubt as to the propriety bathe of the present policy C Y pursued towards the mormons cormons Mor mons from thedrie the dater daie of the treaty 0 to o the ahe expiration of one year thereafter they must be regarded asadi as m ii a thin thep transition state otate and without al cayll kli kii ill jk lawa fram from one year after theadate the date of the treaty to july a 1862 hey bey must be regarded 1 as ai without any law upon thep ther sa subject V of marriage othen other th thin hru bru their own eccle A if the ecclesiastical law of chemor mobs did n not noi at control marriages from froni the date dato of the treaty to the expiration of one year thereafter then monogamous marriages during that period were invalid as also from the expiration of he the one year next after the treaty up to july 1 1662 and in fact aatto to the present day for none but ecclesiastical marriages have havo been celebrated among the Mor cormons mormons mons if we hal bal to trace monogamous |