NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.

No. CCCXXVI.

JANUARY, 1884.

ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROL IN UTAH.

PRESIDENT TAYLOR.

A REPORT has been spread far and wide through the country that in Utah there exists "a combination to nullify the laws of Congress," to defeat the plain will of that body and of the Executive, and also to thwart the adjudication of the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an error. The simple fact is that the citizens of Utah are contending in a peaceable and legal manner for the same rights, privileges, and immunities that are possessed by their fellow-citizens-for these only, and no more.

Some time after the Edmunds bill became law, the commissioners appointed by the President under its provisions came to this Territory and entered upon the discharge of their duties. With regard to the nature and scope of those duties, the commissioners (gentlemen for whom we have much respect) and the vast majority of the people of Utah hold opposite views. One of their first acts was to frame a test oath, which they required every man to take before he would be permitted to vote. By this coup d'état every citizen in Utah-Jew, Gentile, and Mormonwas disfranchised without indictment and without trial: a most summary method of robbing a people of their rights, one that we claim is entirely opposed to both the letter and the spirit of that great charter of human rights, the Constitution of the VOL. CXXXVIII.-NO. 326. 1

United States-an instrument for which, be it said, we have the most profound reverence, believing, as we do, that those who framed it were inspired of the Almighty.

This unconstitutional exaction, which "at one fell swoop" for the time being disfranchised a whole Territory, amounted to this, that a man must swear that he had never simultaneously lived with more than one woman "in the marriage relation." Those who cohabited with more than one woman in adultery or prostitution were not affected by its provisions. The roué, the libertine, the strumpet, the brothel -keeper, the adulterer and adulteress could all vote; no matter how licentious a man or woman might be, all were screened and protected by this law. It was not enacted, as has been supposed, to punish licentiousness and debauchery, but was aimed expressly against those who were associated with more than one woman "in the marriage relation." All, indeed, had their franchise protected except the man who had now, or ever had had, more than one wife, or the woman who had ever been the wife of a polygamist, be she the first, second, or other wife. For the commissioners were such broad constructionists that they declared that no man or woman who ever had been a member of a family practicing plural mar. riage should be permitted to vote. This action was ex post facto in the extreme. It punished men and women without trial, by robbing them of the franchise for doing acts which, at the time when they were done, were not unlawful.

It was, at the same time, a bill of attainder. The first antipolygamy law of Congress was passed in 1862, and all those who had, previous to that time, from deep religious conviction, received and entered into that order of marriage, but had never broken a law of the United States by so doing, for the simple reason that there was no such law, were, by the commissioners' rulings, equally debarred from voting with those who had married in plurality subsequent to that date. We claim that this ruling is eminently unjust, altogether unprecedented, and in violation of the Constitution. But at the same time, in justice to the commissioners, it must not be forgotten that they had a very difficult and delicate task to perform, so much was expected by the country from them, as the executors of the Edmunds law, the passage of which had been procured by the influence of religious fanatics and political demagogues. They found things, on their arrival, so different from what they had anticipated,

that it was impossible for them to meet the exorbitant demands of the country and at the same time comply with the requirements of the law. As one of their number expresses it in his communication to Secretary Teller, they "stretched the legal tether to its utmost tension." Yet, on the other hand, as honorable men and representatives of the Government, it was incumbent on them to comply with the plain provisions of the law.

What, then, did the polygamists-men and their wives-do under these circumstances? They voluntarily withdrew, and left the franchise in the hands of those who were unmarried or, if married, had only one wife. Governor Murray has said in his report that we were nullifiers. Was this nullification? What could we do more? The people quietly, peaceably, and unitedly, without exception, bowed to the fiat of the commission. In what stronger manner could they show their loyalty, their respect for Congress, and their deference to the law, than by this course? Not only were they not nullifiers, but they would not act the part of obstructionists; they actually aided the commission to execute the law, even in the extreme construction that body put upon its language. And by reason of this action on their part the elections that have taken place under the rule of the commission have been conducted without hinderance, obstruction, confusion, or annoyance.

The remarkable interpolation in the commissioners' test oath of the words "in the marriage relation," which do not appear in the law, has led to many curious incidents, some of which would be ludicrous if they were not so humiliating. Here is a case in point: A former mayor of Salt Lake City, Mr. Feramorz Little, a very honorable gentleman and highly respected, came to this Territory many years ago, before there was any law of Congress against plural marriage, and espoused two wives. Subsequently, one of these wives died, then the other, and at the time that this incident occurred he had been for years without a wife. He had a son who was appointed registrar for a certain district in this city, and this son had the mortification of being compelled, under the ruling of the commission, to refuse his father permission to register, and consequently deprived him of the right to vote-a privilege which he had a perfect right to exercise, both because of the provision in the Constitution that no ex post facto law shall be made, and again by reason of the statute of limitations, which

bars all action in any such cases after the expiration of three years. Soon after the refusal of the registrar to place his father's name on the registration list, a well-known keeper of a bagnio and her associates presented themselves, and the son had the humiliation of having to permit them to register. These courtesans afterward voted. Another case: A man came to the place of registration, and remarked to the officer that he supposed he could not register, as he had a wife and also kept a mistress. This man might be considered a very straightforward fellow to make so ready an acknowledgment, but I fail to see anything straightforward in such a crooked transaction as the breaking of the marriage vows and in marital infidelity. But the officer knew what was in the oath better than did this man, and advised him to read it. He did so. When he came to the words, "in the marriage relation," he immediately said, "Yes, I see. I can go that," and was at once sworn and registered.

So it will be perceived that under the official construction of the law the most depraved, the vilest of mankind, can vote, can use the franchise and enjoy the benefits resulting therefrom, and that this portion of the United States is actually threatened with being governed by such an element. And though we quietly submit for the time being, and though some ten or twelve thousand persons have absented themselves from the polls because of the law, yet we are charged with being a menace to the United States, with being inimical to the Constitution and Government, simply because we have undertaken to legitimately and legally test in the courts, as we have the most perfect right to do, the legality and constitutionality of the law and the commissioners' rulings. Could we pursue any wiser course? Should we be worthy of the name of men, much less of freemen, if we permitted these grave encroachments on our rights without one effort in their defense? We shall not follow the course of the Fenians or the Nihilists, or Ku Klux or Regulators, or Communists or Molly Maguires, or other such combinations, nor appeal to dynamite or gunpowder; but, having a high regard for the institutions of our country, we prefer to adopt the means which the law has provided, and legally, constitutionally, and peaceably seek redress for our wrongs. We do this in behalf of our own rights, in behalf of the rights of our children, and in behalf of millions of honorable men in the United States, and of the principles of freedom throughout the

world. For if radicalism, imperialism, oligarchy, and despotism are to bear rule, and the rights of franchise to be refused to citizens by the dictum of commissioners, without a hearing, without proof, and without trial; if test oaths are to take the place of courts and legal testimony, and one principle of liberty after another nullified; if our Constitution, our laws, and the fundamental principles of our Government are to be trampled under foot, it would seem to be high time that all honorable men should stand up in defense of liberty and the rights of man. It is vain to talk of the freedom of the negro while the white man is sought to be disfranchised, manacled, and enslaved. If the course we propose is a menace to good government, what in the name of common sense would those who are offended with our course have us do?

Here let me remark that there is a great deal of misapprehension existing in the minds of the people with regard to our marriage institution. None but the very best of our community

-the virtuous, the honest, and upright-are permitted to take more than one wife. They must be recommended as worthy by their bishop, and by the president of the stake in which they reside. We are, of all people, the most strict in our ideas with regard to morality and virtue. If a man who is a member of our church commit adultery, fornication, or bigamy, he is at once cut off from the communion of the saints, and all fellowship in the church is withdrawn from him; for we regard those sins as among the most abominable of evils, the most heinous next to the shedding of innocent blood. There is not to-day a more virtuous community in the world, or one where female chastity is more highly regarded or more vigorously protected.

There is another point that is misunderstood by the people generally; it is with regard to the illegality of plural marriage. Many persons suppose that there is some provision in the United States Constitution touching this subject. This is an error. The Constitution leaves all matters relating to marriage to be regulated by the people of the various States; and hence it is that so many diversified marriage and divorce codes exist throughout the country. Congress claims the power to regulate these matters in the Territories. We do not admit that this right belongs to the General Government, but claim that in matters of local concern the Territorial Legislative Assemblies are manifestly the proper parties to act in the premises. It is