Show PLURALITY L T Y 0 OF IV WIVES I 1 V C S TH THE ar A ANTI antl T I 1 POLYGAMY 0 L A M Y A ACT T I 1 we behave haye given proof in this series of articles that plurality of wives is a principle sanctioned and sustained su d by the bible that god commanded it that it was practiced by the ancient patriarchs before the mosaic dispensation under the direct sanction and in the actual personal presence presen eb of of jehovah that it was continued through the mosaic dispensation until the comin coming 9 of the savior and that it was practiced I 1 in early apostolic times after the open opening 1119 irig of the christian dispensation behave we have shown that it is in conformity with the book look of mormon and the doctrine and covenants both of which we receive as sacred writings we have printed the revelation which enjoins it upon us as a direct and divine command we I 1 h have ave proved that morally and physiologically 0 it tends to elevate the race when practiced in righteousness and that socially it would redeem mankind from the awful social leprosy with which the nations of christendom are smitten we have bave shown that it is a part pait of our religion as much so as any doctrine doc doe tripe of bf our faith and it cannot but be admitted that constitutionally we haye hake not only the most perfect right to practice all the principles of our religion unmolested but that by the provisions of the constitution the government of our country is bound to protect all its citizens in the full enjoyment of that right mormons cormons Mor mons as well as others since one of our principles interferes in the most remote degree in with the rights of an any y other living soul on the earth plurality of wives then as a principle is morally socially and physiologically correct and as a part of our religious faith we have as blea right to marry two or ten wives as the presbyterian baptist nieth Ileth methodist odist or quaker has to marry one or the shaker to marry none when such is his faith yet the legislative council of the nation in congress assembled enacted a law entitled edi efi titled I 1 an act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the territories I 1 and especially in the territory of utah ae legislating slating for plurality of vives wives as for a crime and leaving us the alternative of disobeying god denying our faith falth bastardizing our children by such legitimate alliances and making 0 shipwreck bf of our salvation or desobe disobeying Y an ark unconstitutional stretch of the la lawmaking law makin making g department that act was passed and approved in 1862 more than nine years after the revelation which made the principle a divine injunction upon us was published in the city of washington and when it was well known that it w was s incorporated in our feitli faith falth as asa a part of our religion that act chai charges 9 es the lawgiver of all tho the earth as accessory to and commanding a crime bilt bait but nut a crime is not simply that which a written statute de nominates such it is the perpetration of a wrong against an individual a community or a state which the lawmaking law making department re recognizes as such and for which it olides provides whatever penalty it may deem proportionate to the extent and nature of the wrong and the injury that lias has been inflicted by its perpetration legislatures are not infallible and least of all are they apt to be free from error where matters of faith and conscience in religion are concerned it has been no uncommon thing in the history of the world for law makers mallers to declare certain religious principles and practices crimes which are now by universal voice exonerated from any such imputation atlon if we are not mistaken there stands upon the english statute books today to day an act of parliament passed in the reign of edward VI which makes it a crime punishable by death to give shelter to or to feed a foreign roman catholic priest the act apt has i fallen into desuetude but it was a few years ago this terrible tiling thing of religious bigotry and intolerance luco anco actually in that instance stigmatized as a crime the commonest act of hospitality and in cases where those against whom the tile statute was directed would look upon it in the light of a religious duty we might cite many cases to show where legislatures had pronounced certain acts criminal which more liberal views and other times not only exonerated from such grave charge but declared them the very opposite apart from the incorrect assumption of legislative enactment plurality of wives can in no way nor manner be justly declared a crime but the act in question is of itself a novelty in jurisprudence and a serious error in ethics it declares honorable marriage which god has had sanctioned and commanded a crime while it passes over promiscuous and sinful intercourse which heaven and nature condemn in the alost un mista keable manner as a matter unworthy of notice it declares by implication that a man may keep as many mistresses stresses mi as he pleases have children by them live with them openly or covertly and the law will pass him by without adjudging him guilty of wrong but if he calls them wives it will condemn him guilty of a crime and punish uni sim with fine and imprisonment if this is not placing a premium on corruption throwing protection around licentiousness and instigating to depravity we fail to see its force or 1 intent but this act goes farther it legalizes plurality of wives while it declares declare the practice a crime As the constitution prohibits congress from passing an ez cz poste facto baw law all marriages consummated prior to its passage were perfectly legal he here re we have the strange anam oly of plural marriages being at once legal and illegal justifiable and criminal in all places where contracted ideas have compelled monogamy by law a second marriage 1 is considered spurious and no ceremony but this act stultifies itself and declares that at one time our marriages were perfectly valid which as mairi magri marriage lage with us is a religious caremon ceremony y is the admission that it was and is li a part of our religious faith and cannot constitutionally be interfered with this places the authors and defenders of the act on two horns of a dilemma neither of which they can get off the law isan ex poste facto one which the constitution forbids inasmuch as years previously it was publicly known that the practice against which the act was levelled bevelled level levei letL led was incorporated in our ous and social polity and beyond that it was known that many nations of the earth practiced it whose inhabitants were g guaranteed by the constitution full fuli liberty to come and make this continent their home and enjoy the most perfect freedom that would not infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens against their coming here with their plural wives the constitution opposed no objections merely giving to the majority of each state the right to frame their own state constitution so that it did not conflict with the constitution of the united states and their representatives in legislative assembly the night right to enact their own cobis constitutional I 1 laws aws thus if the senate and house of representatives senta tives of the tho stat state of new york chose to legalize polygamy it would become the law of that state and congress would not interfere with it for the constitution confers no such power upon them it is an ex cx poste facto law then not only because we practiced the principle years before it was passed but because the principle was practiced be fore the constitution was framed if not inthis in this nation in other nations hat ions lons whose inhabitants were freely invited as were the people of all lands to make their home on this great country if a plurality of wives had been legalized in in any one of the thirteen states that signed the original compact of federation its right to do so would have been undisputed on the principle that the right of the majority to decide on their own local and domestic affairs shall be unquestioned so long as no wrong is perpetrated against any citizen we presume that even today to day congress would not assume to pass a law compelling a person of african descent not td enter into an engagement with another white or black to berve servo him during his natural life congress could not do so without robbing that colored person of his lately acquired liberty to enter into an agreement or dispose of himself as a free agent yet it says it will prevent men and women from entering into the dearest and holiest hollest compact of which the world has any conception and confine the affections within bounds prescribed by law or only allow their gratification in a corrupt and licentious cent ious manner the other horn of the dilemma is that this act in recognizing the existence and validity of plurality of wives admits that it is a part of our r religion ekl eAl gion glon consequently the act is directly opposed to that constitutional provision which declares that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free oree exercise thereof we are willing to leave the matter here satisfied that the tho honor and good name of congress demand the repeal of an act as absurd as that famous one of king edwards time to which allusion has been made in closing we would s ay that we and our enemies with all the inhabitants of the earth are in the hands of a just god who will control and overrule all things for the accomplishment of his own wise purposes and we would recommend to this and all other nations the caution of one of old take heed what ye do lest ye be found fighting against god when they seek by force of power to crush the truth which he has revealed either this work is of man and will die of itself or it is of god and will stand forever the latter we are assured of and cheerfully leave the result in the hands of the almighty |