Show filI LIVING JN POLY POLYGAMY dAMY the renewal of public attention to the formon lormon oiVI question aroused by the indefensible course of the governor of utahan Ut abin ahin certifying to a falsehood for the purpose of depriving driving t the mormons cormons Mor mons of any representation in congress we have been seen in the public journals repeated allusions to the practice of living in polygamy in defiance of the law 11 our delegate is refer nefer referred red to as one who thus lives and a great many suggestions and instructions an and d demands are made to con congress gress in reference to him and tb the a people whom he has so ably represented on an the hypothesis that they are liv ing io de flance defiance of law we wish to show beyond the pos sibl lity of refutation that this is a mistaken view of the case the opinions and recommendations and zings inos inas and threats of the press and the clergy in relation to this matter are based upon incorrect premises there is nothing no thing jn in the constitution or the laws of the united states against the practice called fl living ving in polygamy the constitution makes no allu bionto the subject directly or indirectly erectly it is silent altogether on the marriage question it was evident evidently y the tho intention of the ibe fathers of our country to leave that subject outside pf af national control to be regulated in tho the he various states as the people in eh each might determine if marriage is beco recognized nihed as ordained of god and it 1 is admitted that in a properly solemnized matrimonial has joined together the parties tuni ted as many so called christians profess to believe as well as the mormons cormons Mor mons then congress has no constitutional right to meddle with marriage for it is an au establishment of religion specially protected from congressional interference by the highest law of the land thip thid th constitution certainly does not forbid polygamy nor attempt to regulate marriage of any kind in any vay way the laws of the united states are equally silent upon the subject of f living in polygamy we shall here be met by bv clamorous citations to the law of 1862 1162 nut jut we maintain that there is nothing in that statute that forbids living in polygamy read bead it carefully and see if there is any buch guch provision what is the law oi against 0 simply an ordinance ceremony or establish merit of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints it declares that every person having a husband or wife living who marries another whether married or single in a territory or other place over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction is guilty of bigamy and pro provides ldes ides that such person shall be punished by a fine of not more than nive five hundred dollars and by imprisonment in for a term not more than five tive years certain specified condi condl eions excepted the offense here liere declared to aebig be bigamy is th the e marrying of more wives or husbands than one that which chis is here leof leor legislated slated into luto a crime ia Is the con eon contract trait not the cohabitation if a man has a wife legally married to him and lives with other women in carnal cohabitation this law does not affect him so long as hu he has made no contract or agreement of marriage with those women it is tho the only thing that could possibly sanctify the mans actions which is by this statute constituted criminal the living with the women their bearing children to him hig his support or his ne neglect 7 lect elect of them or his jin conduct in any ani any way towards them is not forbidden so long as lie lio does not contract marriage with them just as soon as he marries them or either of them this law is after him but not before those who concocted and worked fon for the tile passage of the law earod cared noth ing forthe for the practice of cohabitation with more women than one it wt was kis pis iio ilo the ahe lie marrying of them that they were were fojto opposed to it was known that the church of jes jebus jesus us christ of latter day saints had an ordinance of mar of an aee ace accented revelation le from god whereby plural marriages might be solemnized under certain regulations and covenants it was against that ceremony that the law was aimed and directed it is that ceremony which now constitutes the of nence fence tor por if a man marries a plural wife under its form formula U ia and does not live with her the law of 62 makes llis liis act an of bece while if a married man lives with a woman besides h his is wife so long as he does not marry ii her er h his Is acts are n not ot by th tills Is law in made ade an am of fence feuce Livi living rig tig in polygamy 1 is then not a crime under the con ution or laws of the united states those who make make so much noise about living jiving in polygamy and are anxious to spy out cases that can be reached by the jaw do not care anything about mistress keeping or promiscuity so long as there is no marriage two or more women married to the same man by the same kind of contract which binds him to act fairly and justly towards each in his marital relations in his care of all tile parties and their offspring is a condition of affairs that excites them terribly that is a mormon affair but the case of a married man living lewdly with a mistress without any contract or obi obligation ignation to support her or responsibility as to her children and his becomes no object of their pursuit the law does not reach him his case ia is after their 0 own wn sort it is anti antl cmor mor imor mon when papers talk then about the duty of congress to refuse a seat beat to a man living ingin in polygamy contrary to law they are urging a course that cannot be sustained by the law in the ease case of tour delegate they are entirely away fram the mark ther is no law of the united states that can touch him living with his wives Is not a crime against the law and asto as to the constituted act an offense offence by legislation the statute of limitations bars a prosecution three years after it was committed also the id law lav W cannot be retro betro retroactive active it must then first be proven not merely alleged in newspapers that he be has married plural wives since 1862 and then that the contract made with at least one of them was entered into less than three years ago this is impossible of proof because it is not true in fact therefore conviction cannot be had consequently congress cannot lawfully refuse him his seat on the grounds taken by the prodigies of the press who undertake to teach legislators their duty |