OCR Text |
Show RECENT HISTORY AND PRESENT FACTS. The claim that in the organic law of Utah no provision was included to punish men for polygamous poly-gamous practices, but only for polygamous marriages, mar-riages, is true. The circumstances were these. The testimony of President Woodruff, his counsellors coun-sellors and others high in priestly offices, delivered deliv-ered before the chancellor, when the petition for the restoration of the escheated church property .was under consideration, was fresh in the minds of the people. They all had testified that the manifesto had all the authority of a revelation, that by it not only the entering into polygamy but the practice of polygamy was forbidden. It was thought by the Gentiles to be sincere and the proof that it was so held by leading Mormons is made clear through the great falling off of births to polygamous families during the three or four years succeeding the issuing of the manifesto. But the Gentiles in the convention wtre not unaware un-aware of the conditions prevalent throughout tho , territory. 'They knew that on the little farms and in the little hamlets were thousands of poor people who were involved in the meshes of polygamy; families fami-lies with little homes where all the wives and children lived together, where the heads of these multifold households were not financially able to provide separate residences for their plural wives and polygamous children, and the feeling of the Gentiles in that convention was that if the leaders lead-ers were sincere the system was doomed, and that these poor people that had been upon the rack for ten years should not be any longer disturbed by tears of arrest, prosecution, fine and imprisonment. imprison-ment. That the chiefs were lying, that at that time they were only waiting for statehood to resume and amplify on their former practices, that with statehood secured they would not only do as thev had formerly done, but would pass the command to all polygamists throughout the state to "live their religion," was not for a moment thought of. It was not expected that at least three apostles and numbers more of the higher priesthood would take to themselves new plural wives and that such a record of perfidy would, in eight years, be made as would appall and disgust the nation. When newspapers that claim to be Gentile but still want to avoid antagonisms declare that the testimony does not bring any taint upon Apostle Smoot or shake In the least his title, to a seat in the highest body that makes laws for the American Ameri-can people, we rather think they are laboring under a misapprehension, but we are willing to admit that the real cause why the apostlo should be denied a seat lies deeper. Now that the country is fully aroused, the committee cannot very well stop until the truth is made clear that the Mormon system is in truth a temporal government, in every attribute hostile to the freo government of the United States, an imperium in imperio, the head of which at will dishonors the free American ballot by ordering his slaves to cast it as he wills, either to further H the power or add to the exchequer of the so-called H church. When that shall be fully brought out, it H will be most strange if congress does not deter- H nine to be no longer disturbed by the devious H ithods of this organization. H It is amusing almost, to see copied in the Des- H eret News long extracts from the proceedings in H the constitutional convention on this subject. H The enabling act required that tho convention H should provide by ordinance that polygamous or H plural marriages should be prohibited. This dec- H laration had been adopted by the convention, but H it provided no means for its enforcement. Where- H upon Mr. Varian introduced an dmendment which H made a former act of the territorial legislature, H so far as it defined and imposed penalties for H polygamy a part of the constitution, and explain- B ed that the object of the amendment was to give B vitality to the naked statement in the ordinance, B and expressed the belief that congress would ex- B pect such a provision. This was contested by B some of the strong men In the convention osten- B sibly on the ground that the naked declaration B (which as it stood was absolutely without any B binding force), was enough. B The debate brought the impression to some of B the members that there was a disposition in tho B minds of many to hold a hope to the lips of the B country and leave it where any one so disposed H could break it to the heart. This was the im- M pression of the writer and he-called the conven- ifaZ tion's attention to the man who was then presf- ' " JM dent of the United States, and who was to pass H upon the completed constitution. H He had openly expressed his dislike of certain M Western states that had declined, to accept his M dictum on a subject of which he then knew noth- M ing and on which he has never since learned any- M thing, and this writer reminded the convention M that the constitution to be accepted must be with- M out a flaw, that while it would be a dead letter M in Utah unless backed by public opinion, still it's H wording must be perfect to meet the demands of M congress and the executive. M The words were plain enough, easy of under- H standing, unless there was a desire to misunder- ,H stand them. Then Mr. Roberts took up the H theme endorsing the amendment and expressing H tho belief that It was necessary, but objected to H the spirit of the remarks of this writer. In the H light of the present all his buncombe, for it was H nothing else, has a comical sound. H Some of the strongest men in the convention H had fought an amendment which provided a way fl to enforce penalties against a crime, pleading to H have It left merely a glittering generality, abso- H lutely Impotent of power. It was then this writer t H told the gentlemen that the amendment would B be of as little avail as the original ordinance un- B less there was a public sentiment in the state that i B would enforce it, but if they wanted the con- B stitution accepted they must obey the commands B of the enabling act. In the light of the history B which Utah has since made, has the amendment B added anything to the original ordinance? Though , B at least three apostles and no one knows how B many lower priests have taken plural wives since B then has there been a public opinion to enforce B tho penalties. Where do the Honorable B. H. B B B Roberts' professions of good faith come In, and II i if any one pleases to read the discussion under I B j the radium rays of the present, who In that de- B I i bate will be given credit for possessing most sin- B B I cerity? B B j But the main question is made clear in the I B I commencement of this article. The first presi- B B j dency of the church had explained that the manl- B I festo had all the force of a revelation, abso- B B lutely prohibiting, as much the living with more BH ' than one woman as a wife as the taking of plural BH wives, but, as stated above, on the little farms BH and in the little hamlts of the state were thous- BH jj ands of men in polygamy who could not provide BH j separate homes for their different families and no BH j -oe -wanted them disturbed and distressed. BH ' But that supplies no more justification for BH ' such testimony as President Smith gave the other BH j day in Washington than it did for Elder Roberts' BH j heavenly twins. |