Show f I w MR W H SHEARMAN a I His Views On the Action of 3Ir Orson Arnold And the Criticism of the Deseret News Thereon EDITOR DEMOCRAT With many others I very much regret the strictures published pub-lished in the Evening News in regard to the course pursued by Orson Arnold I understand flint President John Taylor saidpublicly that he had put himself in accord with the Edmunds law If this is trueand as the News says of Mr Arnold Ar-nold we would not be justified in assuming as-suming that he was playing the part of a hypocritethen President Taylor long since did just what Orson Arnold has now done neither more nor less excepting except-ing that Mr Arnold declared his intentions inten-tions in the presence of the United States Court before which he had been summoned sum-moned while President Taylor defined his position in a much more public manner man-ner and without any coercion before thousands of his coreligionists We arc thus brought face to face with the issue which has been culminating for years namely the supremacy of f the laws of the United States or those of the Mormon church where the two happen to conflict Now if i it is wrong for Orson Arnold to pledge himself in the presence of the Court to conform to the laws of the land it was equally wrong in President Taylor to do so in the presence of his people If it was treason to the government of God in one case it was in the other If it is an evidence of weakness in Orson Arnold is it i less so in anyone else Besides President Pres-ident i Taylor is the head of the Mormon Mor-mon church the whole people look to him as their example as the great shep herd who not only points the path of duty but leads in it Now if it is right for him to t obey the law of the land it must be right for all his people to do so too Example Ex-ample is louder than precept If God approves and sustains him in this course as the Mormons devoutly believe will he not also approve them in following the example of their leader Nay may not President Taylor justly say by and bye when troubles and difficulties thicken I showed you the way out but you did not follow Again the court did not require Mr Arnold to renounce any principle of his religion It did not ask him to say that he believed plural marriage to be wrong It did not require him to cease to love cherish and protect any one or more of the members of his family It simply required him to conform to the letter of the Edmunds law He had only the option of doing this voluntarily or forcibly If willingly he could enjoy his liberty and continue to protect and labor for the happiness of those he loved Otherwise prison walls would put effectual barriers between them and deprive his family tupport and protection In the first instance he would be seperated from one but could labor for all In the second he would be seperated from all and could labor for none Will any sane person say he decided wrongly or unwisely un-wisely Further Which is the most sensible and honorable courseto do as Mr Arnold Ar-nold has or to run away and leave families fami-lies unprotected and comparatively destitute desti-tute Which shows the most manhood unselfishness and heroism One virtual virtu-al ly 8aysIf I cannot do just I please and live as I have done I will desert both wives and children and leave them to shift for themselves The other says I will not forsake any but will continue to labor l for the benefit of all l even though LoU mw u pnvl lue Ul LlleIr sOCIety It is but justice to the author of the criticism in the News to say that it is understood un-derstood he does not propose to adopt efther of the courses but to boldly meet the issue and take the consequences This may extort admiration from his bitterest bit-terest enemies for its heroism especially if pursued in a spirit of modest firmness instead of proud defiance But if all the male members of the Church do this what is to become of the women and children Not only will they be left un provided for and a prey to the unprincipled unprin-cipled and unscrupulous but the little property they now have will be absorbed by fines and costs Personal explanations are generally in bad taste and I shrink from any notoriety But there are times when it seems a duty to speak I have never disguised my friendship for the Mormon people neither have I hesitated to protest against any thing I regarded as wrong and unjust on their part They have misunderstood me regarded me as their enemy and consequently bitterly hated me Many of them do still But that should not and does not make any difference to me I love themas a peoplefor their general gene-ral integrity and devotion to God truth and righteousness as understood hv them If I believed them to be entirety wrong I should love them more if possible pos-sible For no one is capable of properly judging a person or people and certainly is unable to do them good unless he loves them Under no circumstances will I ever be anything but their friend But flattery is not friendship It seems to me there is but one of four things for the Mormon to do Fight disobey the law and unflinchingly suffer the consequences run away or submit The first would be suicidal No sane Mormon thinks of it Besides even if success by that means were possible it is one of the unalterable laws of the Universe that whatever is established by the sword must sooner or later perish by the sword While principles that succeed without a resort to physical force can never be destroyed by it The second may be heroic and should be adopted by those who really believe that God has commanded them to do what human law forbids But how many are there who can conscientiously state that they have received a command from God to enter into plural marriage or that they have done so purely and strictly from a sense of duty The third may do for those who have plenty mar money But the great majority of those involved cannot can-not run away And if they could nothing would be gained by so doing either in amoral a-moral or physical sense unless they could emigrate en masse to some place where they could found an independent government What the alternative Submission Now does submission involve a cowardly abandonment of principle I would be the last to wish any one for whom I had a particle of affection or respect to renounce I I re-nounce any belief for fear of personal consequences con-sequences But submission involves nothing more than what Presi dent Taylor says he has done and what many others privately tell me they promptly did do when the Edmunds bill became a law Now obe dience to that law is either apostacy from 5 Mormonism or it is not There is no middle ground No Jesuitical casuistry can enable an honest mind to arrive at any other conclusion If it is apostacy what right has the President of the Church or any of its members to yield even private obedience and still claim to be Latterday Saints If it is not apos tacy why not openly and to the satis J faction of the government let the whole Church do as Orson Arnold has done at least until law I and public sentiment are changed W H SlIEARSfAN |