Show MORMON QUESTION 31 UNDER the above heading the national republican of may loth publishes in full the argument of hon jeff chandler before the judiciary committee Committe iB of the house of representatives anthe on the now new edmunds bill referred to that committee it occupies nearly nine columns of small type and is an exhaustive hau stive criticism on the chief sections of that iniquitous measure the whole address with the discussion that occurred with members of the committee during its delivery are worth reproducing in full fall but it is so voluminous that we believe our oar readers will prefer a synopsis with some literal quota j lions the celebrated lawyer commences by i to the edmunds law as it now stands stanch and refuting atef abing the statement believed by many that a ruan man in utah with five wives can cast six votes he quotes the law to prove that such a man has no vote at all that he and his wives are prohibited from 1 9 pia 1 a pd that they are simply 1 ed it the ha la law to exist he passes on to consider the absurd sur excitement over the polygamy poly gany gavay question referring to the statement of mr baskin that only two convictions for polygamy tad beer been secured one b before ore 1 a and n d one since t the e passage 0 of t the e E I 1 so ands lawi law a ani in intimates s that if sue 1 eaas b babo tad in vermont instead of utah the c country antry would not have been so shocked and ad that it is to distinguish i between the moral perfidy ol of such occurrences curren ces in vermont and in utah the statement ol 01 fact is not exactly cort correct bet but that is the fault of mr baskin not Mr Chandler there have been a lew few more convictions but the gent lemans remarks are just as applicable to the point he then asks what grievances the gentiles urging this new legislation haye have to ta complain compla I 1 n of and says the gentiles come here with a 9 representative who tells you that he his has live ta for twenty n t y y years dars and that ain during ring that t time 4 pie t this ps so called mormon element held absolute within the territory of Ut utah utalia aliv they make all the lawe that affect the domestic welfare cfall of ail the people living in that Terr territory Atory and yet timing toe towee hows which he mccu apted in his arl argument cu before this ois committee he could apt pr did not IF a single instance where the thea Gent gentile tle population small been unequal ly or rucj estly treated baths to egl egi now so faras they present then themselves selves bete as clas s ahey state do ao gr grievance levance against they donot do not come here fiefe and say that the political power of utah ought to be taken out of the hands of this majority because the majority use that thap power 0 oppressively against toem them not at all they do not say that taxation is unequal or unjust or that any ny privileges are denied them which are enjoyed by the majority or that there is anything in the exercise of domestic government which gives them the e a slightest lite test cause to complain do bay y say a that t they receive unfair treatment at inthe in the courts ef utah not at all do they show you a single instance in the adjudication of that rom its creation down to this bour hour wherein the gentiles Gentile have shave not been fairly and j justly treated by the abe courts not at uil all then thell what do they complain of it is that the mai majority brity does not deport I 1 itself ia a in mauner aber v to excite he au ao prova lof of the tr Apal atlon ol 01 OW does no not in ad things conduct itself so as to aret and unqualified gro to alTof 30 and therefore the they y ask that tue tae political political power of the majority majori tv shall be taken away from those and be left with the minority that states the case of the conspirators spira tors exactly it is their whole question concisely put punt mr chandler then attacks the provision in the new bill compelling the legal wife to testify against the husband and remarks our civilization protests against the intro introduction Auction of husband and wife as witnesses against each others other the sanctity of the marriage relation is so great esteem of our civilization geat thatis a at at is As bedi believed wed 40 no discord should be between hus geri banded an abid w wife e by bring bringing ipg them in into to conflicting rela relations tiong with each other I 1 in a the court and therefore it was not within the thought tho acht of the framers of the constitution that the wife or husband would ever be tempe compelled to testily testify against each other he then assails the inequality of anti mormon legislation because lae cause it act specially on the mormons cormons Mor mons and not on the gentiles A colloquy between the gentleman and members of the committee results in the demonstration of the accuracy of his bis strictures and the freedom permitted to gentile Gentil el illicit relations while mormon plural marria marriage ge is punished with heartless severity the common idea being advanced by a committeeman that the gravity of the mormon offense is in the acknowledgment of the plural relation and the claim that it is right mr chandler responds now does it not resolve itself into t this his bere rere here is a man who holds out oat by his conduct that he is guilty of illicit cohabitation he does not introduce his partner in the offense as his wife but he be assumes this offensive relation publicly and notoriously and that is called notorious adultery end is deemed as such now here is another party who says I 1 claim a certain relation legal relation with my partner in business but the offense in its moral charac terNo the anti mormon siy s iy i Is s precisely similar in moral turpitude e to the offense under the other name the two transactions differ from each other only in this in one no pretense of marriage Is made there is 18 no pretense of honesty no pretense of decency in the other there is a claim of der decency ency and that is condemned the more severely of the two certain certainly y there is not the moral state oi of pollution la in the one as in the other in the one case there is total depravity and abandonment made madd public in the other there is a claim that it is honest and how bow the transaction that is precisely the same in its outward features should he be coa condemned more harshly because it is pretended to be honest than the one admitted to be dishonest I 1 do not see but bat it does seem to me that the constituents of the two matters are different in this one relation is sincere the other dishonest now is it wise to make the husband or the wife a witness against each other in the cases where the motives are good and not in theother the other Is tuatau atiat an intelligent just humane proposition that it is not such Is conceded when it is made special it if it were a wise just rule of evi evidence dencel you would apply it to the entire united states you would not shrink it IE up you would not restrict it to the meager dimensions of utah and apply it to a particular class only in mali utah you express a distrust of it yourselves when you limit iland when you say that it is only intended for a few deop people ae thereby you declare that it is not suitable for the many 11 the chairman objecting that congress cannot regulate the laws of a state mr chandler answers it does not apply to all transactions to everything over which the federal government has jurisdiction it only applies to cases of bigamy po polygamy gamy and unlawful cohabitation why not apply alpa I 1 y it to all cases of contract and in III all cases where you want to discover facts in court by evidence why not make it general why not break down this barrier against the introduction of husband and wife in toto tolo why make it limited and partial if it is a good thing it should be open to all and not made special and limited to a class congress ought not to be governed by un an uproar on thep the part of a few people who go out to utah people who do not live there who have no interest in common with those people who know nothing of the wants and needs of that comm Auty but syle sole business it is to gain notoriety by ie inflaming flAMing the country against them il 11 this anity is going to recommend abill a biu that bill ought to stand upon a solid legal and impartial basis basio it ought pot not to treat our whole political philosophy with contempt the next point discussed is the provision of the new bill authorizing the arrest ot of witnesses it if there is reason able ground to believe that they will not obey a subpoena 11 the wrong and illegality of such a measure are strongly presented and we make this extract from that part of the agreement any man who has administered law knows chatan that an instruct on to a jury which authorized the jury to find a verdict according to their belief would be held us they must believe belie ve from the evidence you do not submit controversies in any shape to a mere belief you determine and adjudicate the controversies that come before courts on evidence and any statute that dispenses with evidence in order to come to any conclusion is vicious for that reason the constitution forbids the arrest of a person except on probable bable cause probable cause has probable gro been aeu defined so often by our courts that it is understood to be composed of evidence there must be an affidavit of the party having some knowledge of the subject and then there can only be an arrest preliminary to a hearing the party arrested on probable cause is entitled to a hearing bearing before commitment this statute does tolerate imprisonment without a hearing the excess of power this would give over mormon families is enlarged upon and the plea that this extraordinary stretch of of authority is j justified by the extraordinary nature ot the case is effectually disposed of lu in ans answer to questions as to what would be justifiable in the case of a community that recognized horse stealing as an institution mr chandler says if the organization include persons who take no part in committing crime then only those who commit criminal acts can be punished it if parties live ina la a community and sympathize with others who violate the law such sympathy does not render them criminally liable persons can only be punished in this country for overt acts you cannot reach and punish sympathy opinion or feeling merely it may be conceded forth for the e sake of argument that their belief that they are right does not protect them from pros ec elution ution but does their sincerity make thern them worse thin than a person doing the same act knowing it to be wrong should the rules of procedure be changed against a people and made harsher a aher than t ph they y otherwise would be because that people is honest in doing the forbidden act the difference between bigamy in utah and vermont Is this in utah the parties believe they are right in vermont they know the they are wrong the ordinary methods of justice are sufficient to punish the man who knows he is wrong but extraordinary measures are necessary against the honest wrongdoer wrong doer Is au error in belief more to be u punished than intentional wrongdoing wrong doing error in belief Is not no t criminal per se ifo if one who does a forbidden act under a conviction Is morally right to do theace the act is punished in excess of the punishment inflicted upon a person doing a similar act knowing the act to be wrong such excesses of punishment falls upha upon the honest transgressor because of his belief 11 the fallacy of the idea Ides that a man can be punished for advocating plural marriage is thoroughly exposed in extended remarks and the speaker asks will any lawyer say that if I 1 recommend a man to commit bigamy that I 1 could be jointly indicted with him for committing bigamy can I 1 participate with another man in bigamy it is not in the nature of a joint offense there is no conspiracy anich would lie nor would any court construe that if I 1 recommended a person to commit bigamy and he did commit bigamy that I 1 could be held for his bigamy otherwise you would condemn men for their approval you would condemn men for their sympathy th you would condee them for fer their intent intent and under our system of criminal law I 1 defy any lawyer to present any well considered case from any court that holds that persons are liable for sympathy with one who has committed a forbidden act if you extend punishment to sympathy what becomes of your principle of strict can you convict it a man except tor abr an act which lie has committed achand Ac tand intent the 8 supreme U court of the united states has repeatedly said constitute a crime and not intent nut lout the forbidden act and intent together are necessary mr chandler after some further discussion with the committee explains th that at he is not asking for any repeal or change of existing laws jaws but protesting ro testIng against the passage of the bill in tile the hands of the committee which he says has not a provision in it that does not violate settled and accepted doctrines of our law he ad admits mits that from the standpoint of the government polygamy is assailed as a crime but remarks now will you remove in the pun ishmit ut of that crime all the safeguards to personal liberty if we can caa suppress and subdue otner criminals without doing anything but what is in berf perfect act accord I 1 with the great principles ples of personal safety why not regulate this matter by the pame rules all coet coercive elve process is naturally slow you cannot fat at once expunge any state of things from the face of the e earth a rth there have been established great guides of procedure which will not be departed from to punish murder larceny or arson arbod or any other crime we have adopted these aneth because of their supreme excellence on e because of the good which the they do 0 to society in their care careful jul judicious die di 0 9 wisp wise an administration now you have a crime wha or fends bends a certain class of people who have worked themselves into a frenzy and who are pursuing the oh as a calling although they have not suffered a particle from themi them or anything relating to polygamy they only know of polygamy by hearsay they have bave become perfectly enraged at what they call the terrible state MAIM of immorality in utah and they come to this committee and clamor that all the great principles of our law be suspended that we may punish this outrageous race of poleg amista in the territory of utah T the g e remedy fremed V is tenfold worse than the disease the speaker then touches on the project project to disfranchise the women of utah tah he thinks women have their own way pretty well now without the ballot and As is not an advocate of woman suffrage in general but as all who bract practice polygamy are already dis franchised and woman buff suffrage fage is permitted inthe in the territory he cannot see why the principle of local self government which gives them the ballot interfered with aethen he then takes up the legislative commission scheme advocated by baskin and the following colloquy ensues mr char chandler d remarks here is a proposition to give thirteen min men the right to le legislate 8 late mr stewart that is not in this bill mr chandler no but that was in IB the proposition of the gentleman who came here to ask your help in humiliating the mormons cormons Mor mons the proposition is that the mormons cormons cannot be trusted to govern goveria themselves and you are asked to send thirteen men out there to govern this community this Is his hloi proposition now I 1 say either is condemned by the philosophy of our system it was said long ions ago that taxation without representation was tyranny that was our bedni tion I 1 believe and that is the standard definition of tyranny that taxation |