| Show THE UTAH BILL IN THE SENATE SPEECHES OF SENATORS VEST MAXEY AND MORGAN AN INFAMOUS INIOUS MEASURE EXPOSED mr nir vest however much any one of us may be opposed to the institution of polygamy and I 1 yield to no living man in desiring to abrogate it directly or indirectly I 1 will never agree as a member of this or any other legislative body to strike down a f fundamental principle of the common law and of the law of all civilized countries if any doctrine is established beyo beyond d doubt in ewry emery civilized country or semi civilized country where the institution ution ot of marria marriage e is the foundation of the state if there is any doctrine dear to the english and american heart if thera is anything anything crystallized in the civilization 0 of christian peoples and states it is the absolute tile the eternal the undoubted confidence of the relation between husband and wife the first section of this bill strikes down that confidence it does not propose to make the polygamous wife who in the eyes of the law of thy the united states is no wife at all come into a court of justice and divulge or testify to the confidential relations between her and the manewith man with whom she has lived but it takes the lawful wife it takes the woman who is married by the law of the state in which she and her husband originally lived and it says that t the he lawf lawful ul wife shall be forced to come into court and state what occurred between her and her husband in the confidential relations which exist between them in the secrecy of the nuptial chamler chamber chamber striking down every doctrine of the common law every doctrine of our jurisprudence and throwing wide open to the prying curiosity of the world the communications passed in the confidential relations between husband and wife but sir I 1 can ean put it stronger than the supreme court itself in 13 i peters page the supreme count court ot of the united states states said unanimously the rule is founded upon the deepest deepest and soundest principles of our nature principles which have grown out of those domestic relations that constitute the basis of civil society and which are essential to the enjoyment ot of that confidence which should subsist between those who are connected by the nearest and dearest relations of life to break down or impair the great principles which protect the sanctities of husband and wife would be to destroy the best solace of human human existence and in another case they say it would shake the very foundation of society and mr greenleaf in his work on evidence lays down the same doctrine a and 11 d there is no exception yet the first section of this bill allows the polygamous wife to go free but drags in the lawhn 1 wife and compels her to disclose to the world the confidential relations between her and her husband sir I 1 say if there is any doctrine upon which our civili civilization Lation is based which is a part of if our religion it is that tile the husband and wife are one and I 1 have no sort of toleration for tills tilis this new doctrine that you may enter the chamber of the husband and wife and drag her into a court of justice and compel her to state slate what her husband had said to her andi place her under the torture of the cress examination of an infamous attorney breaking down every sanctity that should be placed around the holi est relation that of husband and wife the senator from f rom massachusetts told us that the pure love of one man for one woman was the basis of our religion and that this bill was intended to protect that and yet in the very first section of this bill it strikes down the very foundation stone of christian marriage the doctrine that the husband and wife are one that no human law can drag the woman into court and com compel ea her to disclose what her husband banT said sald to her under the sanctity of the marriage roof for that reason I 1 say sav that this amendment should be adopted opted by the senate so that the bif wife e can only be compelled to testify as to the fact of marriage beyond that this relation of husband and wife is sacred mr vest the principle upon which the law was based was that the wife should not be put in antagonism to her husband etwas it was based upon the christian idea that the husband and wife were one it was based upon the idea that after a man and woman had assumed this rela reia relation tiou no human law could step between husband and wife and make a wife bif e a witness against her husband in any event now the senator from massachusetts imagines a case where the wife is brought in to testify to the polygamous marriage the man is a polygamist ol 01 gadist mr hoar N till will the senator allow me to put putto to him a question if the doctrine rests on the theory that husband and wife are one how can that be applicable to a case where husband and wife are half a dozen mr vest I 1 am not discussing polygamy I 1 am aux discussing monogamy mono amy I 1 am discussing the christian relation mation of husband and wife in which I 1 believe and in which only I 1 believe and I 1 say the doctrine of the common law and of all civilized and christian countries is that the wife shall not be brought in and made to become the opponent in law or otherwise of her hus husband band baud now the senator says that he wants the thelah lawf ful fui ul wife to come in and testify as to the polygamous marriage well the poly polygamous wife can testify to it Is polygamous the famous lawful awful wife to be brought before the court and made to convict her 0 own wn husband hus bus band and put him in the penitent tiari biary and take him away from both I 1 nis his law lawful I 1 and unlawful ua wife this senate representing a christian peonie people will permit amit ant any woman to test testify fv to her lawful marriage and to the lawful relation between her and any man and to the legitimacy of her own children for that reason I 1 do not take away from her the right to testify to her own marriage but I 1 would stop there and I 1 would not put her hen in antagonism to her lawful husband ina lna in a court of justice in subversion of all the principles of our jurisprudence and that of every civilized count country dir nir If maxey axey I 1 do not suppose that any man is more opposed tuan myself to polygamy in all its forms and phases but this first section strikes strike at a different different thing it strikes not at polygamy but at monogamy at common law as I 1 understand it no man can have at one and the same time more than one wife wl e nor can any woman have at one and the same time more than one husband and that relation under the com common I 1 non law really merges the existence of the wife into that of her husband the situation of the wife has been wondern wonderfully ully ally and wisely ameliorated as years have rolled by and yet under the common law you could not make a wife go in and testify against the husband or the husband against the wife or one for or against the other under the recent law reforms a wife may testify against her husband in certain cases and the husband against the wife if but it is a voluntary act purely and Nv wholly holly but here it is provided that the lawful wife may not only voluntarily give testimony against the husband but may be compelled to go into a grand jury room or elsewhere and testify that is an utter violation of every principle of the common law and of every principle of statute law that I 1 know anything about so far as the statutes have modified the common law in respect to evidence the rheamond amand ment of the senator from Misso missouri url uri it does seem to me is right something has been said about the second wife and the third wife I 1 know 0 V 0 of f but one wife e under the common to 11 law 1 and I 1 believe that according za to the th theory of our government according to M the t e great foundation principle of society as organized by the colonis colonies brought here from great britain enacted into our state constitutions and into our statutes it never was designed ed nor intended intended in this country th that there should be any other principle save monogamy that is my bellef belief about it and hene heue I 1 have been willing to go as far as the farthest in any w wise ise lse legitimate method to stamp out polygamy but when it comes to saying that a man has a lawf lawful ul wife and that lawful wife shall be compelled to go into court and testify against him that is going very far beyond reaching roly toly polygamy amy that is in my judgment lit rit breaking real aing into into the sacred precincts of a lawful marriage and in direct violation as I 1 think of every principle of of law justice and right reason and against the most sacred relation that can exist between man and wife A mormon may have one lawful wife as well weli as anybody else and may llave have but one lawful wife and yet under this bill if the mormon las has but one wife e a lawful wife and the grand jury thinks proper to investigate that mans conduct that lawf lawful ua wife though the most confidential relations exist between her and her husband may be made to testify the whole theory of the first section in in my judgment is wrong mr morgan in case of any any cri crl criminal ml I 1 act committed by the husband on the body of the wife or by the wife up on the body of the husband the party injured would be competent to testify to such an act as that the object being to preserve the rights of individuals durin during the marital relation but that qualification of the common law which is adopted into tile tiie oregon statute never ham nad any application to actions brought in the name of the state for the vindication of the authority and power of the state against a husband or against wife as for instance it never applied to a case of homicide a case of robbery a case of mayhem or anything of the kind unless the injury lumur inflicted was upon the body body budy of the wile wife now we come to the case of new hampshire new hampshire has so far relaxed the common law rule as to permit the husband or the wife to be a competent witness for or arain avain against st each other in civil actions or in lu criminal actions unless it may beat the expense of the viola vlola violation flon fion of marital confidence putting the right rishton of the husband of the wife to testify very much on th the e ground ra und of the relation that exists be between t wee th the e attorney and ills his client or the physician and his patient but neither of these cases it is obvious reaches the doctrine which is put into this bill of the right of the thu state to compel the husband or to compel the wife to testify against tile tiie onor the other as the case may be 31 maing maung aung a witness competent to te testify 1 I his opt option oy or f for 0 r his personal protect ion lon is a ve very d different iff lff e r e n matter smatter f from roin coi col conn ill ili 01 ul filing in that witness I 1 t n S t to 0 testify at tile the ill iu daize ance anbu and demand of the state the sul sel from kansas desires this rule to be adopted as it is reported in liu this bill and aadne he finds a reason for 1 hat flat lie he says in bringing about a more perfect e equality between the lius ilus husband baud band and the the thy wife wafe in matters of personal and private right I 1 shall not undertake to enter into any bany disquisition or philosophical in inquiry ua ry as to how far the independence of the wife or the independence of the husband in v be sustained without the destruct destruction dest io rt ot the marital relation of all its con lence iunce and of all its purity and of all its ita excellence and of all its trust it is enough for me that I 1 do not find in any enlightened christian country in the world upon the statute book the same compulsory power which is sought to be embodied in this bill and put into the form of law forthe for the purpose ose of duppre suppressing asing polygamy in ul utah t 11 mr president we can scarcely do d 0 anything at all touching the marital relation that would be more injurious to it than this proposed act it is not necessary for forthe the independence or the comfort or the happiness of either husband or wife that they should have authority to go into court and reveal against each other confidential communications matters a knowledge of which has been derived through the intimate association which the law and which the institutions institution n S of SOC goc society lety create between a man and his wife there is no occasion so far as they are personally concerned for persona i protection that either of them should E have ave this right ther the j may be and I 1 believe there ther e are some tates in the american union perhaps it is so in the district of columbia where the wife or husband may be examined as witnesses for themselves and against theother the other party in cases of divorce that is a very great stretch and a very dangerous one too in the law relating delatin dangerous tot to the e regulation of mari marl manntai marital tal tai relations relation s between a man moan and his wife Th this isbill bill provides that in any proceeding and examination before a grand jury a judge justice or a united states commissioner or a court in any prosecution for bigamy polygamy or unlawful ani ant un awful cohabitation cohabit ati on under auy any statute of the united states the lawful aut ani husband or wife of the permon perron accused shall be a competent detent witness and may be called and may be compelled to testify in such proceeding examination or prosecution cution without the consent of ee the hus husband gose and or wife as the case may be if this bill had stopped at the point of being a competent witness that would have gave rave been enough and I 1 should have made no objection to it but wilen you compel the husband or the w wife ife to come into court and duclose those matters in the face of the world which have been acquired from each other through the confidence of the marital relation you do something that has a greater tendency to break up and destroy that relation in all its harmony its unity and its excellence than the cormons mormons mormons cormons are doing to today day by their inroad upon it t through hiro ugh their polygamous practices I 1 maintain that the government of the united states Is not put in that distressing attitude toward this question we have the power to suppress this evil in the territories just as much as the states have within their limits I 1 do not know of any state that for the purpose of the suppression of bigamy or polygamy has resorted to this compulsory pro r 0 cess of compelling the tile lawful wife cipe to to I 1 testify against her husband or for him either elther or the lawf lawful ul husband to testify for or against his wife and unless some senator can show that the t he precedent has been established in the experience peri ence of some of the states which will lead us to this extent it seems to me lne that the answer is conclusive that we ought ht not to take it we are admitting too much of the power of this crime and the perpetrators thereof when we find it necessary as a congress of the uliter states to usurp to ourselves control over the marital relations of this country that no other civilized government has as yet ever attempted to usurp we are admitting too much it is not necessary to go to that extent in order to punish this crime and if we set the example we shall probably find in the various states of this till union a number of character pretexts pro texts for legislation leil of a alike like ilke senators have made ion lon long iong 1 and able arguments and anxious arguments too upon the subject of the prevalence of divorce in the united states it is enough to alarm any community to know that the sacred relation of husband and wife is being |
