Part 9 (1/2)
Government could exist only in name under such circ.u.mstances.”
Those words express the views of at least nine tenths of the people in our land. To deny those statements is to deny doctrines that are essential to the possibility of civil government, and in effect would reduce society to a state of anarchy in which every one may do as he pleases without any legal responsibility. Crimes against society do not cease to be crimes because they are religiously committed. Society can never take the criminal's conscience, whether it be religious or otherwise, as a test or guide on this subject, and yet live under the regulation of law.
Nevertheless, the Mormons do not agree with us in such views, and hold that every person who is convicted under the Edmunds law is a martyr to his religion.
And looking at the subject as they do, we cannot help but feel a measure of respect for the Mormons while we deplore their bondage, when we find them, after conviction in court, when the alternative is presented to them of a promise to obey the law against polygamy hereafter or go to prison, deliberately choose the latter, saying, as Abram H. Cannon, one of the elders of the Church did, March 17th, 1886: ”I would like to state, your Honor, that I have always endeavored to keep the laws of the United States, because I have been taught by my parents that the Const.i.tution was a sacred instrument. That I have failed in this respect and now stand before you convicted of the crime of unlawful cohabitation is due to the fact that I acknowledge a higher law than that of man, which is the law of G.o.d; and that law being a part of my religion, sir, I have attempted to obey it. When I embraced this religion I promised to place all that I had, even life itself, upon the altar, and I expect to abide by that covenant which I made. And, sir, I hope the day will never come when I must sacrifice principle even to procure life or liberty. Honor, sir, to me is higher than anything else upon the earth; and my religion is dearer to me than anything else that I have yet seen. I am prepared, sir, for the judgment of the court.” Such a man one cannot help but respect; and we can only wish that he stood up thus manfully in a n.o.bler cause than that of polygamy.
Shortly after Governor West went to Utah on his appointment by the President, he visited the penitentiary of the Territory, and in an address to the Mormon inmates promised them pardon if they would hereafter obey the law; but after reflection, the following written reply was sent to him signed by forty-eight Mormon prisoners:
”UTAH PENITENTIARY, May 24, 1886.
”_To his Excellency Caleb W. West, Governor of Utah_:
”SIR: On the 13th instant you honored the inmates of the Penitentiary with a visit and offered to intercede for the pardon of all those enduring imprisonment on conviction under the Edmunds law, if they would but promise obedience to it in the future, as interpreted by the courts. Grat.i.tude for the interest manifested in our behalf claims from us a reply. We trust, however, that this will not be construed into defiance, as our silence already has been. We have no desire to occupy a defiant att.i.tude toward the Government, or to be in conflict with the nation's laws. We have never been even accused of violating any other law than the one under which we were convicted, and that was enacted purposely to oppose a tenet of our religion.
”We conscientiously believe in the doctrine of plural marriage, and have practised it from a firm conviction of its being a divine requirement.
”Of the forty-nine elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints now imprisoned in the penitentiary for alleged violation of the Edmunds law, all but four had plural wives from its pa.s.sage to thirty-five years prior to its pa.s.sage. We were united to our wives for time and eternity by the most sacred covenants, and in many instances numerous children have been born as a result of our union, who are endeared to us by the strongest paternal ties.
”What the promise asked of us implied you declined to explain, just as the courts have done when appeals have been made to them for an explicit and permanent definition of what must be done to comply with the law.
”The rulings of the courts under this law have been too varied and conflicting heretofore for us to know what may be the future interpretations.
”The simple status of plural marriage is now made, under the law, material evidence in securing conviction for unlawful cohabitation, thus, independent of our act, ruthlessly trespa.s.sing upon the sacred domain of our religious belief.
”So far as compliance with your proposition requires the sacrifice of honor and manhood, the repudiation of our wives and children, the violation of sacred covenants, Heaven forbid that we should be guilty of such perfidy; perpetual imprisonment, with which we are threatened, or even death itself, would be preferable.
”Our wives desire no separation from us, and were we to comply with your request they would regard our action as most cruel, inhuman, and monstrous, our children would blush with shame, and we should deserve the scorn and contempt of all just and honorable men.
”The proposition you made, though prompted, doubtless, by a kind feeling, was not new, for we could all have avoided imprisonment by making the same promise to the courts; in fact, the penalties we are now enduring are for declining to so promise rather than for acts committed in the past. Had you offered us unconditional amnesty, it would have been gladly accepted; but, dearly as we prize the great boon of liberty, we cannot afford to obtain it by proving untrue to our conscience, our religion, and our G.o.d.
”As loyal citizens of this great Republic, whose Const.i.tution we revere, we not only ask for, but claim, our rights as freemen; and if from neither local nor national authority we are to receive equity and mercy, we will make our appeal to the Great Arbiter of all human interests, who in due time will grant us the justice hitherto denied.
”That you may, as the governor of our important but afflicted Territory, aid us in securing every right to which loyal citizens are ent.i.tled, and find happiness in so doing, we will ever pray.”
Now, this reply is respectful, sincere, and straightforward, yet firm and vigorous, and shows no sign of weakness or indecision. We must credit the signers with the courage of conviction and the qualities which cause men to suffer rather than recant. Such acts show unmistakably the utter futility of law _now_ as applied to Mormon polygamy. Had the law which was enacted in 1862 then been rigidly put in force, and, if necessary, supplemented by other legislation to make it effective, Mormon polygamy might ere this have come to an end. Then it was in its first decade of existence, and had not had time to be firmly grounded in the minds of the people as a distinctive article of their faith; but now it has thirty-five years of open practice back of it, and the example of father and mother, who are stigmatized by any harsh appellation applied to polygamy.
Furthermore, the belief in it has been instilled into the minds of the present generation from their childhood, and has become firmly grounded in their belief.
There is one great mistake made by most people in regard to Utah polygamy.
They believe that the women of Utah are held by the men in a kind of captivity, not being able to escape from their degradation, but would gladly avail themselves of liberty if they only had an opportunity. The fact is, that they are in voluntary servitude, and would not accept liberty, because _they believe it is their duty to be polygamists_.
There was a ma.s.s-meeting of women held in Salt Lake City in the fall of 1878 which was attended by about two thousand women who were devoted Mormons. At that meeting one woman seventy years of age said: ”I thank G.o.d that I am a polygamous wife;” and she said she had a ”feeling of great pity for those who did not enjoy this good blessing.” Another old lady said: ”I would not abandon it to exchange with Queen Victoria and all her dependencies.” The secretary of the meeting said: ”The women of this country want to crush us, but it will be diamond cut diamond.” And thus for nearly three hour one speaker after another defended polygamy, all believing it to be an inspired doctrine given by G.o.d to aid in redeeming a sinful world from a condition of sin and pollution to one of holiness and purity. The following resolution among others was unanimously adopted by the meeting:
”_Resolved_, That we solemnly avow our belief in the doctrine of the patriarchal order of marriage--a doctrine which was revealed to and practised by G.o.d's people in past ages, and is now re-established on earth by divine command of Him who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; a doctrine which, if lived up to and carried out under the direction of the precepts pertaining to it, and of the higher principles of our nature, would conduce to the long life, strength, and glory of the people practising it; and we therefore indorse it as one of the most important principles of our holy religion, and claim the right of its practice.”
It can be plainly seen from that meeting that the leading Mormon women are in earnest in their plea for polygamy, and that it is practised because _they believe G.o.d commanded it_; and consequently it can never be overcome by human law.
SENATOR h.o.a.r, who, with Senator Edmunds, has divided the honor of originating radical laws against Mormon polygamy, seems himself to have acknowledged their worthlessness as an effective remedy. The following letter from him to Joseph Cook was read by the latter in connection with his lecture delivered in Boston, February 2d, 1885: