F

82.1
• H8

THE UTAH BILL.

A Plea for Religious Liberty,

Hon. W. H. HOOPER,

OF UTAH,
Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 23, 1870,

TOGETHER WITH THE

KEMO3 STRANGE

Of the Citizens of Salt Lake City, in Mass Meeting,

held March 31, 1870, to the Senate

of the United States.

WASHINGTON, D. C.

GIBSON BROTHERS, PRINTERS.

1870.

SPEECH.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish to make a few remarks concerning the extra-
ordinary bill now under consideration. While so doing, I crave the at-
tention of the House, for I am here, not alone as one of the people sought
to be cruelly oppressed ; not only as the Delegate representing Utah ; but
as an American citizen, to utter my solemn protest against the passage of
a bill that aims to violate our dearest rights, and is fraught with evil to
the Republic itself.

I do not propose to occupy the time of the House by dwelling at length
upon the vast contributions of the people of Utah to the wealth of the
nation. There is no member of this House who does not recollect in
his school-boy days the vast region west of the Rocky Mountains char-
acterized in the geographies as the " Great American Desert." "There,"
said those veracious text-books, "was a vast region wherein no man
could live. There were springs and streams, upon the banks of which
could be seen the bleaching bones of animals and of men, poisoned
from drinking of the deadly waters." Around the borders of this vast
desert, and in its few habitable parts, roamed the painted savages,, only
less cruel and remorseless than the desert itself.

In the midst of this inhospitable waste to-day dwell an agricultural,
pastoral, and self-sustaining people, numbering 120,000 souls. Every-
where can be seen the fruits of energetic and persistent industry. The
surrounding mining Territories of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona,
and Nevada, in their infancy, were fed and fostered from the surplus
stores of the Mormon people. The development of the resources of
these mining Territories was alone rendered possible by the existence
at their very doors of an agricultural people, who supplied them with
the chief necessities of life at a price scarcely above that demanded in
the old and populous States. The early immigrants to California paused
on their weary journey in the redeemed wastes of Utah, to recruit their
strength, and that of their animals, and California is to-day richer by
thousands of lives and millions of treasure, for the existence of this half-
way house to El Dorado.

To the people of Utah, therefore, is to be attributed no inconsiderable
part in the production of the vast mineral wealth which has poured into
the coffers of the nation from our mining States and Territories.

This, however, is but a tithe of our contributions to the nation's
wealth. By actual experiment we have demonstrated the practicability
of redeeming these desert wastes. When the Pacific slope and its
boundless resources shall have been developed ; when beyond the Rocky
mountains 40,000,000 of people shall do homage to our flag, the millions
of dwellers in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana, enriched
by the products of their redeemed and fertilized deserts, shall point to
the valley of Great Salt Lake as their exemplar, and accord to the sturdy
toilers of that land due honor, in that they inaugurated the system and
demonstrated its possible results. These results are the offering of Utah
to the nation.

When Robert Fulton's first steamboat moved from New York to Al-
bany, so far as concerned the value of the vessel, he had made scarce
a perceptible addition to our merchant marine ; but the principle, the
practicability of which he then demonstrated, was priceless, and en-
riched the nation more than if she had received the gift of the vessel,
built from and loaded with solid gold.

I will not, Mr. Speaker, trespass upon the time of the House by more
than thus briefly adverting to the claims of Utah to the gratitude and
fostering care of the American people.

For the first time in the history of the United States, by the intro-
duction of the bill under consideration, a well-defined and positive effort
is made to turn the great law-making power of the nation into a moral
channel, and to legislate for the consciences of the people.

Here, for the first time, is a proposition to punish a citizen for his
religious belief or unbelief. We have before us a statute-book desig-
nating crimes. To restrain criminal acts, and to punish the offender,
has heretofore been the province of the law, and in it we have the sup-
port of the accused himself. No man comes to the bar for trial with
the plea that the charge upon which he is arraigned constitutes no of-
fence. His plea is, "Not guilty." He cannot pass beyond and behind
the established conclusions of humanity. But this bill reaches beyond
that code into the questionable world of morals — the debatable land of
religious beliefs ; and, first creating the offence, seeks with the malig-
nant fury of partisan prejudice and sectarian hate to measure out the
punishment.

The bill before us declares that that system which Moses taught, that

God allowed, and from which Christ, our Saviour, sprung, is a crime,
and that any man believing in it and practising it — I beg pardon,
the bill, as I shall presently show, asserts that belief alone is sufficient —
that any one so offending shall not be tried, but shall be convicted,
his children declared bastards, his wives turned out to starve, and his
property be confiscated, in fact, for the benefit of the moral reformers,
who, as I believe, are the real instigators in this matter.

The honorable member from Illinois, the father of this bill, informs
us that this is a crime abhorred by men, denounced by God, and pro-
hibited and punished by every State in the Union. I have a profound
respect for the motives of the honorable member. I believe he is in-
spired by a sincere hostility to that which he so earnestly denounces.
No earthly inducement could make him practise polygamy. Seduction,
in the eyes of thousands, is an indiscretion, where all the punishment
falls upon the innocent and unoffending. The criminal taint attaches
when the seducer attempts to marry his victim. This is horrid. This
is not to be endured by man or God, and laws must be promulgated to
prevent and punish.

While I have this profound regard for the morals and motives of the
honorable member, I must say that I do not respect, to the same ex-
tent, his legal abilities. Polygamy is not denounced by every State
and Territory, and the gentleman will search in vain for the statute or
criminal code of either defining its existence and punishment. The
gentleman confounds a religious belief with a criminal act. He is
thinking of bigamy when he denounces polygamy, and in the confusion
that follows, blindly strikes out against an unknown enemy. Will he
permit me to call his attention to the distinction ? Bigamy means the
wrong done a woman by imposing upon her the forms of matrimony
while another wife lives, rendering such second marriage null and void.
The reputation and happiness of a too confiding woman is thus forever
blasted by the fraudulent acts of her supposed husband, and he is de-
servedly punished for his crime. Polygamy, on the contrary, is the
act of marrying more than one woman, under a belief that a man has
.he right, lawfully and religiously, so to do, and with the knowledge
and consent of both the wives.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that in proclaiming the old Jeffersonian doc-
trine that that Government is best which governs least, I would not
have even a minority upon this floor. But when I say that in a system
of self-government such as ours, that looks to the purest democracy, and
seeks to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the peo-

pie, we have no room for the guardian, nor, above all, for the master, I
can claim the united support of both parties. To have such a govern-
ment, to retain such in its purest strength, we must leave all questions
of morals and religion that lie outside the recognized code of crime to
the conscience of the citizen. In an attempt to do otherwise than this,
the world's abiding places have been washed with human blood, and its
fields made rich with human bones. No government has been found
strong enough to stand unshaken above the throes of religious fanati-
cism when driven to the wall by religious persecution. Ours, sir, would
disappear like the " baseless fabric of a vision" before the first blast of such
a convulsion. Does the gentleman believe, for example, that in aiming
this cruel blow at a handful of earnest followers of the Lord in Utah he
is doing a more justifiable act than would be, in the eyes of a majority
of our citizens, a bill to abolish Catholicism, because of its alleged im-
morality; or a law to annhilate the Jews for that they are Jews, and
therefore obnoxious? Let that evil door once be opened; set sect
against sect ; let the Bible and the school books give place to the sword
and the bayonet, and we will find the humanity of to-day the humanity
of the darker ages, and our beautiful government a mournful dream of
the past.

This is not only philosophically true, but, sir, it is historically a
fact. In making the appeal, I stand upon the very foundation-stone of
our constitutional Government. That they might worship God in ac-
cordance with the dictates of conscience, the fathers fled from their
homes in Europe to the wilds of America. For this they bore the
fatigues or perished in the wilds of a savage-haunted continent ; for
this they poured out their blood in wars, until every stone in the huge
edifice that shelters us as a nation is cemented by the blood of the
martyr. Upon this, however, I need not spend my time or yours ; a
mere statement of the proposition is a conclusive argument from which
the people, in their honest instincts, will permit no appeal. In our
Constitution, still perfect and fresh as ever, we have a clause that
cannot be changed and leave a vestige of a free government. In the
original instrument we find this language : " No religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the United States." But this was not considered sufficiently compre-
hensive for a free people, and subsequently we find it declared, " Con-
gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Upon the very threshold of my argument, however, I am met by the

advocates of this extraordinary bill with the assumption that polygamy
is not entitled to be considered as a portion of our religious faith ; that
under the Constitution we are to be protected and respected in the enjoy-
ment of our religious faith, but that we are not entitled to consider as a
portion thereof the views held by us as a people in reference to the mar-
riage relation. One eminent disputant, as an argument, supposes a
case where a religious sect might claim to believe in the rightfulness of
murder, and to be protected in the enjoyment of that right. This is not
in any sense a parallel case. Murder, by all law, human and divine, is
a crime ; polygamy is not. In a subsequent portion of my remarks, I
shall show, that not only by the authority of the Old Testament writers,
but by numerous leading writers of the Christian church, the doctrine
of polygamy is justified and approved. The only ground upon which
any argument can be maintained that our views of the marriage relation
are not to be considered as a portion of our religious faith, is that mar-
riage is a purely civil contract, and therefore outside the province of
religious doctrine. No sect of Christians can, however, be found who
will carry their beliefs to this extent. The Catholic church, the most
ancient of the Christian churches, and among the most powerful in
numbers of the religious denominations of our country, upon this point
is in accord with the Mormon church. Marriage, according to the faith
of the Catholic church, is one of its sacraments ; is not in any sense a
civil contract, but a religious ordinance, and the validity of a divorce
granted by a civil court is denied. And not in any Christian church
is the marriage contract placed on a par with other civil contracts — with
a swap of horses or a partnership in trade. It is a civil contract, in
that a court of equity, for certain specified causes, may dissolve it ; but
not otherwise. Upon the marriage contract is invoked the most solemn
sanctions of our Christianity ; the appointed ministers and servants of
God, by their presence and aid, give solemnity and efficiency to the
ceremonial, and upon the alliance is invoked the Divine guidance and
blessing. To most intents and purposes, with every Christian denomi-
nation, the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious ordinance.
Upon this point, therefore, and a vital point in the discussion of the
question before us, the Catholic church in fact, and the other religious
denominations in theory and usual practice, are with the Mormons in their
position, that the supervision and control of the marital relation is an
integral and essential portion of their religious faith and practice, in the
enjoyment of which they are protected by the Constitution.

The Mormon people are a Christian denomination. They believe

8

fully in the Old and New Testaments, in the divinity of Christ's mis-
sion, and the upbuilding and triumph of his church. They do not be-
lieve, however, that light and guidance from above, ceased with the cruci-
fixion on Calvary. On the other hand, they find that in all ages, when-
ever a necessity therefor existed, God has raised up prophets to speak
to the people, and to manifest to them his will and requirements. And
they believe that Joseph Smith was such a prophet; that the time had
arrived when there was a necessity for further revelation, and through
Joseph Smith it was given to the world.

Upon this point of continuous revelation, which is really one of the
turning points of the controversy, we are in accord with many of the
most eminent divines of the Christian church, and with the most earnest
and vigorous thinkers of our own day.

Upon the departure of the Pilgrim Fathers from Holland for Amer-
ica, the Rev. John Robinson, their beloved pastor, preached a farewell
sermon, which showed a spirit of mildness and tolerance truly wonderful
in that age, and which many who claim to be ministers of God would
do well to imitate in this :

" Brethren, we are quickly to part from one another, and whether I
may ever live to see your faces on earth any more, the God of heaven
only knows; but whether the Lord hath appointed that or not, 1
charge you, before God, and His blessed angels, that you follow me no
further than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. If God
reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to
receive it as you were to receive any truth by my ministry ; for I am
fully persuaded, I am very confident, that the Lord has more truth yet
to break forth out of His holy word.

" For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the re-
formed churches, who are come to a period in religion, and will go at
present no further than the instruments of their reformation. The
Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw. What-
ever part of His will our good God has revealed to Calvin, they will
rather die than embrace it ; and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where
they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things.

" This is a misery much to be lamented, for though they were burning
and shining lights in their time, yet they penetrated, not into the whole
counsel of God ; but were they now living, would be as ready to em-
brace further light as that which they first received. I beseech you
to remember that it is an article of your church covenant, that you
shall be ready to receive whatever truths shall be made known to you
from the written ivord of God. "

And, says Ralph Waldo Emerson, in one of his most golden utter-
naces, " I look for the hour when that supreme beauty which ravished

9

the souls of those Hebrews, and through their lips spoke oracles to all
time, shall speak in the West also. ' The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
contain immortal sentences that have been the bread of life to millions.
But they have no epical integrity ; are fragmentary; are not shown in
their order to the intellect. I look for the new Teacher that shall fol-
low so far those shining laws that he shall see them come full circle j
shall see their rounding, complete grace ; shall see the world to be the
mirror of the soul."

Conceding, therefore, that new revelations may be at all times ex-
pected in the future of our race, as they have been at all times vouch-
safed in the past, and the whole controversy ends. A man has arisen
named Joseph Smith ; he claims to be a prophet of God, and a numerous
community see fit to admit the justice of such claim. It is a religious
sect ; it has to-day vindicated its right to live by works and sacrifices
which are the admiration even of its enemies. It brings forward certain
new doctrines ; of church government ; of baptism, even for their dead 5
of the marriage relation. Upon what point is it more probable that
light from above would be given to our race, than upon the marriage
relation? The social problem is the question of the age. The minds
of many of the foremost men and women of our day are given to the
study of the proper position and relations of the sexes. The wisest
differ — differ honestly and unavoidably. Endless is the dispute and
clamor of those honestly striving to do away with the social evil ; to
ameliorate the anomalous condition of the wronged and suffering women
of to-day. And while this is so ; while thousands of the good and pure
of all creeds and parties are invoking the Divine guidance in their efforts
for the good of our fallen humanity, is it strange that the Divine guidance
thus earnestly besought should come — that the prayers of the righteous
be answered ? The Mormon people believe that God has thus spoken ;
that through Joseph Smith he has indicated the true solution of the
social questions of our day ; and while they persecute or question no
man for differing honestly with them, as to the Divine authority of such
revelation, they firmly insist that in their following of what they believe
to be the will of God, they are entitled to the same immunity from perse-
cution at the hands of the Government, and to the same liberty of thought
and speech, wisely secured to other religious beliefs by the Constitution.

Upon the point whether polygamy can properly be considered as a
part of our religious faith and practice, I beg leave humbly further to
submit, sir, that the decision rests solely on the conscience and belief of
the man or woman who proclaims it to be a religious belief. As I have

10

said, it is not numbered among the crimes of that code recognized by all
nations having any form of government under which criminals are re-
strained or punished, and to make it such, a new code must be framed.
My people proclaim polygamy as a part of their religious belief. If they
are honest in this, however much they may be in error, they stand on
their rights under the Constitution, and to arrest that error you must
appeal to reason, and not to force. I am here, not to argue or demon-
strate the truthfulness of their faith ; I am not called upon to convince
this honorable House that it is either true or false ; but if I can convince
you that this belief is honorably and sincerely entertained, my object is
accomplished.

It is common to teach, and thousands believe that the leaders
of the sect of Latter-Day Saints, popularly known as Mormons, are
hypocrites, while their followers are either ignorant, deluded men
and women, or people held to their organization by the vilest impulses
of lust. To refute these slanders, I can only do as the earlier Christians
did, point to their sufferings and sacrifices, and I may add, the unani-
mous testimony of all, that aside from what they consider the objection-
able practice of polygamy, my constituents are sober, moral, just, and
industrious in the eyes of all impartial witnesses. In this community,
removed by long reaches of wastes from the moral influences of civiliza-
tion, we have a quiet, orderly, and Christian community. Our towns
are without gambling hells, drinking saloons, or brothels, while from
end to end of our Territory the innocent can walk unharmed at all hours.
Nor is this due to an organized police, but to the kind natures and
Christian impulses of a good people. In support of my argument of
their entire sincerity, I with confidence appeal to their history.

The Mormon church was established at Fayette, New York, in the
year 1830. In 1831 the headquarters of the people was removed to
Kirtland, Ohio, and considerable numbers of missionaries were sent out
to preach the new religion in various parts of the Northern States. Many
converts were made and removed to Kirtland, but they were subjected
to various petty annoyances and persecutions by the surrounding people.
Land not being abundant or easily acquired for the rapidly increasing
numbers, the new converts were advised to locate in Jackson county,
Missouri, where land was abundant and cheap — where, in fact, but few
settlers had preceded our people. The Mormons soon became a pros-
perous and wealthy community ; the same habits of industry and thrift
which they have ever maintained being even then vigorously inculcated
by their leaders. Many hundred thousand acres of Government land

11

were purchased, fine farms and thriving settlements were established,
and the first printing press in western Missouri put in operation. But
the wealth acquired by the people was desired by our neighbors ; the
lawless border-men, who afterward made the frontiers of Kansas their
battle-field, attacked, plundered, and murdered our settlers, and finally
drove them from their delightful homes, which they appropriated to
themselves. The title to much of the land in Jackson and other coun-
ties is to-day in Mormons, who were then driven from their homes.
During the troubles incident to the expulsion of the Mormons, hundreds
of men, women, and children were murdered, or died from diseases
caused by exposure to the inclemencies of the weather. The wretched
refugees afterward located in Clay, Caldwell, and Davies counties, Mis-
souri, where there were almost no settlers, and where, within a few
years, their industries had again built up thriving settlements and accu-
mulated large herds of stock. The outrages of Jackson county were then
repeated, the Mormons driven from their homes, which were seized by
the marauders, and thousands of women and children driven forth home-
less, and the prey for the border-ruffians whose cupidity had been ex-
cited by the wealth of the industrious exiles. Hundreds perished from
cold, exposure, and starvation. But their leaders, sustained by an un-
dying faith, again called together their scattered and impoverished fol-
lowers, and removing to Illinois, founded the city of Nauvoo.

For several years they were comparatively undisturbed ; they built up
one of the most thriving and beautiful cities of the State. Far as the
eye could reach from the eminence of their temple, the well-tilled farms
and gardens, the comfortable farm-houses, the mills and factories, and
well-filled schools, attested the industry, the thrift, and the wealth of
the once persecuted people But again their wealth created envy in the
lawless border-men of the new State. Without what even their enemies
claim was justifiable cause, and in a manner which Gk»v. Ford charac-
terized as a permanent disgrace to the people of the State, they were at-
tacked, pillaged, and driven across the river; their houses burned;
their women and children driven forth unsheltered in the inclement
season of the year; their leaders brutally murdered.

The annals of religious persecution, so fruitful of cruel abuse, can give
nothing more pitiable and heart-rending than the scenes which followed
this last expulsion. Aged men and women, the sick and feeble, children
of tender years, and the wounded, were driven into the flats of the river,
yet in sight of their once happy houses, to perish from exposure and
starvation. While over our broad land the church bells of Christian

12

communities were ringing out peace and good-will to men ; while to the
churches thronged thousands to hear preached the gospel of charity and
forgiveness; these poor, heart-sick followers of the same Redeemer, were
driven in violence from their houses to perish like wild beasts in the
swamps and wilderness. The gentlemen charge us with hypocrisy and
depraved lusts for motives, with such a record as this to mock their
charges ! The world has many hypocrites, and is well filled with wicked
men, but they keep about them the recompense of sin, and have other
histories than this I give you, and which history no man can deny.

Word went out to the world that Mormonism had finally been an-
nihilated. But again the scattered hosts were gathered together, and
set out on a pilgrimage, that since that of the children of Israel has
been without parallel in the history of the human race. They had no
stores ; they were beggared in the world's goods, yet with earnest re-
ligious enthusiasm they toiled on through unknown deserts, over un-
explored mountain ranges, and across plains haunted by savages, only
less cruel than the white Christians who had driven them forth in
search of that promised land, where at last they could worship God in
accordance with the dictates of their own consciences, and find un-
broken that covenant of the Constitution which guards this sacred
right. Ragged, foot-sore, starving and wretched, they wandered on.
Delicately nurtured women and their little children dug roots, or sub-
sisted on the bark of trees or the hides of animals. From Nauvoo t'>
Salt Lake, the valley of their promised land — 1,500 miles — there is
to-day scarce a mile along that dreary and terrible road, where does
not repose the body of some weary one, whom famine, or sickness,
or the merciless savage, caused to perish by the way.

It was while on this pilgrimage that an order carne from the Gov-
ernment for five hundred men to serve as soldiers in the Mexican
war. The order was promptly obeyed. These devoted men, who
had received only cruel persecution from the people they were called
upon to protect on the field of battle, dedicated their poor, helpless
wives to God, and themselves to their country. Leaving their families
to struggle on as best they could, these brave, patriotic men followed
our flag into New Mexico and California, and were at last disbanded
at San Diego, with high praise from their officers, but with scanty
means to return to those they loved, and whom they had left to suffer,
and perhaps to perish on the way.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, three times did this persecuted people, before
tbeir location in Utah, build up for themselves pleasant and prosperous

13

homes, and by their industry surround themselves with all the com-
forts and appliances of wealth ; and three times were they, by an
unprincipled and outrageous mob, driven from their possessions, and
reduced to abjectest poverty. And bear it in mind, that in every
instance the leaders of these organized mobs, offered to all who would
abandon and deny their faith, toleration and the possession of their
homes and wealth. But they refused the tempting snare. They re-
joiced that they were thought worthy to suffer for the Master, and,
rather than to deny their faith, they welcomed privation; the}7 sacri-
ficed all that earth could offer; they died the saintly martyr's death.

Mr. Speaker, is this shining record that of a community of hypo-
crites ? What other Christian denomination of our country can show
higher evidences of earnestness, of devoted self-sacrifice for the preser-
vation of their religious faith ?

In further presentation of my argument, Mr. Speaker, that the
doctrine of polygamy is an essential feature in our religious faith, and
that in our adherence thereto we are advocating no new or unsup-
ported theory of marriage, I crave the indulgence of the House
while I cite some few from the numerous writers of weight and au-
thority in the Christian Church, who have illustrated or supported the
doctrine.

Now, sir, far be it from me to undertake to teach this learned House,
and above all, the Hon. Chairman of the Committee on
Territories, great theological truths. If there be any subject with
which this honorable body is especially conversant, it is theology.
I have heard more Scripture quoted here, and more morality taught,
than in any other place it was ever my fortune to serve. With great
diffidence then, I venture to suggest to the supporters of this bill,
that while polygamy had its origin in holy writ, taught as I have said
before by the greatest of all lawmakers, and not only tolerated, but
explicitly commanded by the Almighty, as I shall presently show,
monogamy, or the system of marriage now recognized by so many
Christian nations, originated among the Pagans of ancient Greece and
Rome.

I know, sir, that the reporb accompanying the bill fetches vast stores
of theological information to bear ; informs us that polygamy is contrary
to the Divine economy, and refers to the marriage of the first human
couple, and cites the further testimony of the Bible, and that of the his-
tory of the world. Setting aside the last named as slightly too volumin-
ous for critical examination in the present discussion, we will take up,

14

as briefly as possible, the Divine authorities, and the commentaries
and discussions thereon by eminent Christian writers, and see how far
my people have been misled by clinging to them. As for the illustrious
example quoted of our first parents, all that can be said of their mar-
riage is, that it was exhaustive. Adam married all the women in the
world, and if we would find teaching by example, we must go among
bis descendants, where examples can be found among the favored peo-
ple of God, whose laws were of Divine origin, and whose conduct re-
ceived sanction or punishment at His hands.

At the period of the Reformation in Germany, during the early part
of the 16th century, those great reformers, Luther, Melancthon, Zwin-
gle, and Bucer, held a solemn consultation at Wittenburg on the.
question, " Whether it is contrary to the Divine law for a man to have
two wives at once?" and decided unanimously that it was not: and
upon the authority of this decision, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, actu-
ally married a second wife, his first being still alive. This fact is
recorded in D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, and by other
authors of that period.

Dr. Hugo Grotius, a celebrated Dutch jurist and statesman, and
most eminent law-writer of the seventeenth century, states that " the
Jewish laws allow a plurality of wives to one man."

Hon. John Selden, a distinguished English author and statesman,
a member of Parliament for Lancaster in 1624, and who represented
the University of Oxford in the Long Parliament of 1640, in his work
entitled " Uxor Hebraica," the Hebrew Wife, says that "polygamy
was allowed, not only among the Hebrews, but in most other nations
throughout the world ; and that monogamy is a modern and a Euro-
pean custom, almost unknown to the ancient world."

Dr. Samuel Puffendorf, professor of law in the University of Heidel-
berg, in Germany, and afterwards of Lund, in Sweden, who wrote
during the latter part of the 17th century, in his great work on the
law of nature and of nations, says that " the Mosaic law was so far
from forbidding this custom (polygamy) that it seems in several places
to suppose it;" and in another place he says, in reference to the
rightfulness thereof, "the polygamy of the fathers, under the old cov-
enant, is an argument which ingenuous men must confess to be unan-
swerable."

Rev. Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, the particular friend of
William III, who was eminent among both historians and theologians,
wrote a tract upon this subject, near the beginning of the 18th century.

15

The tract was written on the question, "Is a plurality of wives in any
case lawful under the gospel ?"

" Neither is it (a plurality of wives) anywhere marked among the
blemishes of the patriarchs; David's wives, and store of them he had,
are termed by the prophet, God's gift to him; yea, a plurality of
wives was made in some cases a duty by Moses' law ; when any died
without issue, his brother, or nearest kinsman, was to marry his wife,
for raising up seed to him ; and all were obliged to obey this, under
the hazard of infamy, if they refused it ; neither is there any excep-
tion made for such as were married. From whence I may faithfully
conclude, that what God made necessary in some cases to any degree
can in no case be sinful itself; since God is holy in all His ways.

" But it is now to be examined if it is forbidden by the goppel. A
simple and express discharge of a plurality of wives is nowhere to be
found.

" It is true our Lord discharges divorces, except in the case of adul-
tery, adding that whosoever puts away his wife on any other account,
commits adultery ; so St. Luke and St. Matthew in one place have it,
or commits adultery against her; so St. Mark has it, or causes her to
commit adultery ; so St. Matthew in another place.

" But, says an objector, if it be adultery then to take another woman
after an unjust divorce, it will follow that the wife has that right over
the husband's body that he must touch no other.

" This is indeed plausible, and it is all that can be brought from
the New Testament which seems convincing ; yet it will not be found
of weight.

" For it is to be considered, that if our Lord had been to autiquate
the plurality of wives, it being so deeply rooted in the men of that
age, confirmed by such fashions and unquestioned precedents, riveted
by so long a practice, he must have done it plainly and authoritative-
ly, and not in such an involved manner as to be sought out of his
words by the search of logic.

" Neither are these dark words made more clear by any of the
apostles in their writings ; words are to be carried no further than the
design upon which they were written will lead them to ; so that of our
Lord being, in that place, to strike out divorce so explicitly, we must
not by a consequence condemn a plurality of wives, since it seems
not to have fallen within the scope of what our Lord does there dis-
approve.

" Then fore, to conclude this short answer, wherein many things
are hinted, which might have been enlarged into a volume, I see
nothing so strong against a plurality of wives as to balance the great
and visible imminent hazards that hang over so many thousands, if it
be not allowed."

Rev. Martin Madan, a relative of the poet Cowper, and an accom-
plished scholar, was chaplain of the Lock Hospital in London during

16

the latter "part of the 18th century. By his exertions the first chapel
for the use of the unfortunate inmates of that hospital was built, and
then, perhaps for the first time in the history of England, the gospel
was preached for the special benefit of fallen women. The sympathies
of their benevolent chaplain were so deeply enlisted in their behalf
that lie published a book upon the subject in 1780, entitled " Thelyph-
thora ; or, a Treatise on Female Ruin, in its Causes, Effects, Conse-
quences, Prevention and Remedy," which remedy he discovers to be
polygamy, and which lie discusses in a very thorough manner in three
octavo volumes. I submit copious extracts from this learned work,
which, in addition to being directly in point in the discussion before
us, illustrate the earnestness and sincerity of the author in his efforts
to benefit the condition of fallen women and to prevent the ruin of
others.

" The best and fairest,, and, indeed, the only way to get at the
truth on this, as on every occasion where religion is concerned, is to
lay aside prejudice, from whatever quarter it may be derived, and
let the Bible speak for itself. Then we shall see that more than one
wife, notwithstanding the seventh commandment, was allowed by God
himself, who, however others might take it, must infallibly know His
own mind, be perfectly acquainted with His own will, and thoroughly
understand His own law. If He did not intend to allow a plurality
of wives, but to prevent and condemn it, either by the seventh com-
mandment, 01 by some other law, how is it possible that He should
make laws for its regulation, any more than He should make laws for
the regulation of theft or murder ? How is it conceivable that He
should give the least countenance to it, or so express His approbation
as even to work miracles in support of it ? For the making a woman
fruitful who was naturally barren must have been the effect of super-
natural power. He blessed, and, in a distinguished manner, owned
the issue, and declared it legitimate to all intents and purposes. If
this be not allowance, what is ?

" As to the first, namely, His making laws for the regulation of
polygamy, let us consider what is written in Exodus xxi, 10. If he (i.
c., the husband) take him another wife, (not in so doing that he sins
against the seventh commandment, recorded in the preceding chapter,)
but her food, her raiment, (i. e., of the first wife,) and her duty of
marriage, he shall not diminish. Here God positively forbids a ne-
glect, much more the divorcing or putting away of the first wife, but
charges no sin in taking the second.

" Secondly. When Jacob married Rachel she was barren, and so
continued for many years ; but God did not leave this as a punish-
ment upon her for marrying a man who had another wife. It is said,
(Genesis xxx, 22,) that God remembered Rachel ; and God harkened

17

unto her and opened her womb, and she conceived and bare a son,
and said, ' God hath taken away my reproach.' Surely, this passage of
Scripiure ought to afford a complete answer to those who bring the
words of the marriage bond as cited by Christ, (Matthew xix, 5,)
' They twain shall be one flesh,' to prove polygamy sinful, and should
lead us to construe them as, by this instance and many others, the
Lawgiver himself appears to have done ; that is to say, where a
woman, not betrothed to another man, unites herself in personal
knowledge with the man of her choice, let that man's situation be
what it may, they twain shall be one flesh. How, otherwise, do we
find snch a woman as Rachel united to Jacob, who had a wife then
living, praying to God for a blessing on her intercourse with Jacob,
and God, hearkening to her, opening her womb, removing her barren-
ness, and thus by miracle taking away her reproach ? We also find
the offspring legitimate, and inheritors of the land of Canaan — a plain
proof that Joseph and Benjamin were no bastards, or born out of law-
ful marriage.

" See a like palpable instance of God's miraculous blessing on
polygamy in the case of Hannah. (1 Samuel, i and ii.) These in-
tances serve also to prove that, in God's account, the second mar-
riage is just as valid as the first, and as obligatory ; and that our
making it less so is contradictory to the Divine wisdom.

" Thirdly. God blessed and owned the issue. How eminently this
was the case with regard to Joseph, see Genesis Ixix, 22-26 ; to
Samuel, see 1 Samuel, iii, 15. It was expressly commanded that a
bastard, or son of a woman that was with child by whoredom, should
not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth gen-
eration. (Deuteronomy xiii, 2.) But we find Samuel, the offspring
of polygamy, ministering to the Lord in the tabernable at Shiloh,
even in his very childhood, clothed with a linen ephod, before Eli,
the priest. See this whole history, 1 Samuel, i and ii. Who, then,
can doubt of Samuel's legitimacy, and consequently of God's al-
lowance of and blessing on polygamy ? If such second marriage
was, in God's account, null and void, as a sin against the original law
of marriage, or the seventh commandment, or any other law of God,
no mark of legitimacy could have been found on the issue ; for a
null and void marriage is tantamount to no marriage at all ; and if
no marriage, no legitimacy of the issue can possibly be. Instead of
such a blessing as Hannah obtained, we should have found her and her
husband, Elkanah, charged with adultery, dragged forth, and stoned
to death ; for so was adultery to be punished. All this furnishes us
with a conclusive proof that the having more than one wife with which
a man cohabited was not adultery in the sight of God ; or, in other
words, that it never was reckoned by Him any sin against the sev-
enth commandment, or the original marriage institution, or any other
law whatsoever.

" Fourthly. But there is a passage in Deuteronomy xxi, 15, which
is express to the point, and amounts to a demonstration of God's al-
lowance of plurality of wives. If a man have two wives, one be-

18

loved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the
beloved and the hated ; and if the first-born be hers that was hated,
then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath,
that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son
of the hated, which is, indeed, the first-born, by giving him a double
portion of all that he hath ; for he is the beginning of his strength,
and the right of the first-born is his. On the footing of this law, the
marriage of both women i? equally lawful. God calls them both wives,
and He cannot be mistaken ; if He calls them so, they certainly were
so. If the second wife bore the first son, that son was to inherit be-
fore a son born afterwards of the first wife. Here the issue is ex-
pressly deemed legitimate and inheritable to the double portion of the
first-born ; which could not be, if the second marriage were not deemed
as lawful and valid as the first.

" Fifthly. To say that a plurality of wives is sinful is to make God
the author of sin ; for, not to forbid that which is evil, but even to
countenance and promote it, is being so far the author of it, and ac-
cessory to it in the highest degree. And shall we dare to say, or even
think, that this is chargeable upon Him who is of purer eyes than to be-
hold evil, and who cannot look on iniquity? (Habbakuk i, 13.)
God forbid.

" When God is upbraiding David, by the prophet Nathan, for his
ingratitude to his Almighty benefactor, (2 Samuel, xii,) he does it in
the following terms, verse 8 : ' I gave thee thy master's house, and
thy mastei's wives unto thy bosom, and I gave thee the house of Is-
rael and Judah, and if that had been too little, I would, moreover,
have given thee such and such things.'

" Can we suppose God giving more wives than one into David'^
bosom, who already had more than one, if it was sin in David to take
them ? Can we imagine that God would thus transgress (as it were)
His own commandment in one instance, and so severely reprove and
chastise David for breaking it in another? Is it not rather plain,
from the whole transaction, that David committed mortal sin in taking
another living man's wife, but not in taking the widows of the de-
ceased Saul ? And thus, therefore, though the law of God condemned
the first, yet it did not condemn the second.

" Sixthly. When David took the wife of Uriah he was severely
reprimanded by the prophet Nathan, but after Uriah's death he takes
the same woman, though he had other wives before, and no fault is
found with him ; nor is he charged with the least flaw or insincerity
in his repentance on that account. The child which was the fruit of
his intercourse with Bathsheba, during her husband Uriah's life, God
struck to death with his own hand. (2 Samuel, xii, lo.) Solomon,
born of the same woman, begotten by the same man, in a state of
pluralily of wives, is acknowledged by God himself as David's law-
ful issue, (1 Kings, v, 5,) and as such set upon his throne. The law
which positively excluded bastards, or those born out of lawful wed-
lock, from the congregation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation,
(Deuteronomy xxiii, 2,) is wholly inconsistent with Solomon being em-

19

ployed to build God's temple, being the mouth of the people to God
in prayer, and offering sacrifices in the temple at its dedication, unless
David's marriage with Bathsheba was a lawful marriage; Solomon,
the lawful i^sue of that marriage ; consequently a plurality of wives
no sin, either against the primary institution of marriage or against
the seventh commandment. But so far from Solomon being under
any disqualification from the law above mentioned, he is appointed by
God himself to build the temple. (1 Kings, viii, 19.) His prayer is
heard, and the house is hallowed (chapter ix, 3) and filled with such
glory that the priests could not stand to minister. (Chapter viii, 11.)
Solomon, therefore, as well as Samuel, stands as demonstrable proof
that a child born under the circumstances of a plurality of wives is
no bastard — God himself being the judge, whose judgment is according
to truth.

" A more striking instance of God's thoughts on the total difference
between a plurality of wives and adultery does not meet us anywhere
with more force and clearness, in any part of the sacred history, than
in the account which is given us of David and Bathsheba and their
issue.

" When David took Bathsheba, she was another man's wife ; the
child which he begat by her in that situation was begotten in adultery
— and the thing which David had done displeased the Lord. (2 Sam-
uel, xi, 27.) And what was the consequence? We are told (2 Sam-
uel, xii, 1) the Lord sent Nathan, the prophet, unto David. Nathan
opened his commission with a most beautiful parable, descriptive of
David's crime; this parable the prophet applies to the conviction of
the delinquent, sets it home upon his conscience, brings him to repent-
ance, and the poor penitent finds mercy — his life is spared. (Verse
13.) Yet God will vindicate the honor of His moral government, and
that in the most awful manner the murder of Uriah is to be visited
upon David and his house. The sword shall never depart from thine
house. (Verse 10.) The adultery with Bathsheba was to be retaliated
in the most aggravated manner. ' Because thou hast despised me,
and hast taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to be thy wife, thus
saith the Lord, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,
and I will take thy wives and give them unto thy neighbor before
thine eyes ; and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun ;
for thou didst it secretly ; but I will do this thing before all Israel and
before the sun.' All this was shortly fulfilled in the rebellion and in-
cest of Absalom. (Chapter xi, 21, 22.) And this was done in the
way of judgment on David for taking and defiling the wife of Uriah,
and was included in the curses threatened (Deuteronomy xxxviii, 30)
to the despisers of God's laws.

" As to the issue of David's adulterous commerce with Bathsheba, it
is written, (2 Samuel, xii, 15,) the Lord struck the child that Uriah's
wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. What a dreadful scourge
this was unto David, who could not but read his crime in his punish-
ment, the following verses declare, wherein we find David almost frantic

20

with grief. However, the child's sickness was unto death, for (verse
18) on the seventh day the child died.

"Now let us take a view of David's act in taking a plurality of
wives, when, after Uriah's death, he added Bathsheba to his other wives.
(Verses 24, 25.) And David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, and went
in unto her and lay with her, and she bare a son, and he called his
name Solomon, (that maketh peace and reconciliation or recompense,)
and the Lord loved him. Again we find Nathan, who had been sent
on the former occasion, sent also on this, but with a very different
message. And He (theLord) sent by the hand of Nathan, the prophet,
and he called his name Jedediah, (Dilectus Domini — Beloved of the
Lord) because of the Lord — i. e., because of the favor God had towards
him. (Verse 24.)

" Let any read onward through the whole history of Solomon ; let
them consider the instances of God's peculiar favor toward him al-
ready mentioned, and the many others that are to be found in the ac-
count we have of him : let them compare God's dealings with the
unhappy issue of David's adultery and this happy offspring of Bath-
eheba, one of his many wives, and if the allowance and approbation
of the latter doth not as clearly appear as the condemnation and pun-
ishment of the former, surely all distinction and difference must be at
an end, and the Scripture itself lose the force of its own evidence.

" Seventhly. I have mentioned the law being explained by the
prophets. These were extraordinary messengers, whom God raised
up and sent forth under a special commission, not only to foretell
things to come, but to preach to the people, to hold forth the law, to
point out their defections from it, and to call them to repentance, under
the severest terms of God's displeasure unless they obeyed. Their
commission in these respects we find recorded in Isaiah Iviii, 1 : ' Cry
aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet ; show my people
their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.' This commission
was to be faithfully executed at the peril of the prophet's own destruc-
tion, as appears from the solemn charge given to Ezekiel, chapter iii,
18 : ' When I say to the wicked, thou shalt surely die, and thou givest
him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked to save his life, the
same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require
at thine hand.'

" These prophets executed their commissions very unfaithfully to-
ward God and the people, as well as most dangerously for themselves,
if a plurality of wives was sin against God's law, for it was the common
practice of the whole nation, from the prince on the throne to the
lowest of the people ; and yet neither Isaiah, Jeremiah, nor any of
the prophets, bore the least testimony against it. They reproved
them sharply and plainly for defiling their neighbors' wives, as Jere-
miah, v, 8 ; xxix, 23, in which fifth chapter we not only find the
prophet bearing testimony against adultery, but .against whoredom
and fornication, (verse 7,) for that they assembled themselves by troops
in the harlots' houses. Not a word against polygamy. How is it possi-

21

ble, in any reason, to think that this, if a sin, should never be men-
tioned as such by God, by Moses, or any of the prophets ?

" Lastly. In the Old Testament, plural marriage was not only al-
lowed in all cases, but in some commanded. Here, for example, is the
law, (Deut. xxv, 5-10:) • If brethren dwell together, and one of them
die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto
a stranger ; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to
him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
And it shall be that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in
the name of the brother which is dead, that his name be not put out
of Israel,' etc.

"This law must certainly be looked upon as an exception from the
general law, (Leviticus xviii, 16,) and the reason of it appears in tho
law itself, namely : ' To preserve inheritances in the families to which
they belonged. '

* " As there was no law against plurality of wives, there was
nothing to exempt a married man from the obligation of marrying his
brother's widow. * * * * For let us suppose that not only the
surviving brother, but all the near kinsmen, to whom the marriage of
the widow and the redemption of the inheritance belonged, were mar-
ried men — if that exempted them from the obligation of this law — as
they could not redeem the inheritance unless they married the widow,
(Ruth iv, 5) — the widow be tempted to marry a stranger — to put her-
self and the inheritance into his hands — and the whole reason assigned
for the law itself, that of raising up seed to the deceased, to preserve
the inheritance in his family, that his name be not put out of Israel
— fall to the ground. For which weighty reasons, as there was evi-
dently no law against a plurality of wives, there could be no exemp-
tion of a man from the positive duty of this law because he was mar-
ried. As we say, ' Ubi cadit ratio, ibi idem jus'

" I will now hasten to the examination of a notion, which I fear is
too common among us, and on which what is usually said and thought on
the subject of a plurality of wives is for the most part built ; I mean
that of representing Christ as appearing in the world as ' a new law-
giver, who was to introduce a more pure and perfect system of morality
than that of the law which was given by Moses.' This horrible blas-
phemy against the holiness and perfection of God's law, as well as
against the truth of Christ, who declared that He came not to destroy
the law, but to fulfil it — this utter contradiction both of the law and
Gospel — was the foundation on which the heretic, Socinius, built all his
other abominable errors.

" Christ most solemnly declared that heaven and earth could sooner
pass than one jot or tittle pass from the law. Think not, said He, that
I am come to destroy, but to fulfil. So far from abrogating the law, or
rule of life, which had been delivered by the hand of Moses, or setting
up a new law in opposition to it — He came into the world to be subject
to it in all things, and so to fulfil the whole righteousness of it. (Mat. iii,
15.) To magnify and make it honorable, (Isaiah xiii, 21.) even by
His obedience unto death. Speaking in the spirit of prophecy, (Psalms

22

xl, 8,) He says : ' Lo, I come ; in the volume of the book it is written
of me, I delight to do Thy will, 0 my God ; yea, Thy law is within
my heart.' And in His public ministry, how uniformly doth He
speak the same thing ?

"If we attend to our Saviour's preaching, and especially to that
heavenly discourse delivered from the Mount, we shall find Him a most
zealous advocate for the law of God, as delivered by Moses. We shall
find him stripping it of the false glosses, by which the Jewish rabbis
had obscured or perverted its meaning, and restoring it to that purity
and spirituality by which it reacheth even to the thoughts and intents
of the heart. For instance, when He is about to enter upon a faithful
exposition of the moral law, lest His hearers should imagine that what
He was about to say was contrary to the law of the Old Testament,
being so different from the teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees, He
prefaces His discourse with those remarkable words, (Matthew xvii,
17-20:) 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets;
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; for verily I say unto you, till
heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the
law till all be fulfilled.5

" Let us take a nearer and more critical view of those passages of
the gospels in which Christ is supposed to condemn the plurality of
wives as adultery. The first which I shall take notice of as introduc-
tory to the rest is Matthew v, 31, 32: 'It hath been said, whosoever
shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.'

" The next Scripture to be further considered is Matthew xix, 9 : ' I
say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, (except it be for forni-
cation,) and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso mar-
rieth her which is put away committeth adultery.'

" Christ was surrounded at this time by a great multitude of people,
who, in principle, as living under the law of the Old Testament, were
polygamists, and, doubtless, numbers of them were so in practice. Many
there must have been among this great multitude of Jews who had either
married two wives together, or, having one, took another to her arid co-
habited with both. Had our Lord intended to have condemned such
practices, he would scarcely have made use of words which did not de-
scribe their situation, but of words that did. It is very plain that he
that putteth away his wife by giving her a bill of divorcement could have
nothing to do with the man who took two wives together, or one to an-
other, and cohabited alike with both. But we are apt to construe Scrip-
ture by supposing persons, to whom particular things are said, were in
the circumstances then in which we are now ; but it was far otherwise ;
they had no municipal laws against plurality of wives as we have. So
far from it, their whole law (as has been abundantly proved) allowed it.
Which said law, and every part thereof, was at the time Christ spake
what is recorded in Matthew xix, 9, in as full force and efficacy as at
the moment after Moses had delivered it to the people. He, therefore,

23

could no more state a plurality of wives as adultery by the law of Israel
than I can state it as high treason by the laws of England.

"Can it be imagined that Christ, so remarkable for His precision, so
thoroughly accurate in all He said on every other point, should use so
little in this as not to make Himself understood by His hearer ?
Nay; that he should observe so little precision as not to describe an
offence which we are to suppose Him to condemn ? The most flagrant in-
stances, the most obvious and palpable definitions of a plurality of
wives, cannot be understood from what He says. He that putteth
away his wife by bill of divorcement, and marrieth another, does not
describe a man's taking two wives together and cohabiting with both,
nor a man's having a wife and taking another to her and cohabiting
with both . Such was the Old Testament plurality of wives — not the put-
ting away one in order to take another.

"Now, if a plurality of wives were unlawful, and, of course, null
and void before God, then was not Christ legally descended of the
house and lineage of David, but from a spurious issue, not only
in the instances above mentioned, but also in others which might be
mentioned. So that when Christ is supposed to condemn a plurality of
wives as adultery, contrary to the institution of marriage, and to the
seventh commandment, He must at the same time be supposed to de-
feat His own title to the character of the Messiah, concerning whom
God had sworn to David, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the
flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on His throne. (See Acts ii, 30,
with Psalms cxxxii, 11.)

"The lawfulness of a plurality of wives must of course be estab-
lished, or the whole of Christianity must fall to the ground, and Christ
not be He that was to come, but we must look for another. (Matthew
xi, 3.)

"In none of St. Paul's epistles, nor in the seven awful epistles
which St. John was commanded to write to the seven churches in Asia,
is a plurality of wives found among the crimes for which they were re-
proved. Every other species of commerce between the sexes is dis-
tinctly and often mentioned ; this not once, except on the woman's side,
as Romans vii, 3; but had it been sinful and against the law on the
man's side, it is inconceivable that it should not have been mentioned
on both sides equally.

"Grotius observes, 'Among the Pagans few nations were content
with one wife,' and we do not find the apostle making this any bar to
church membership. It can hardly be supposed that if a plurality of
wives were sinful — that is to say, an offence against the law of God —
the great apostle should be so liberal and so particular, in his epistles to
the Corinthians, in the condemnation of every other species of illicit
commerce between the sexes, and yet omit this in the black catalogue,
(chapter vi, 9, &c.;) or that he should not be as zealous for the honor of
the law of marriage, or of the seventh commandment, which was evi-
dently to maintain it, as Ezra was for that positive law of Deuteronomy
vii, 3, against the marrying with heathens. Ezra made the Jews put
away the wives which they had illegally taken, and even the very children

24

which they had by them; how is it that Paul, if a plurality of wives
was sinful, did not make the Gentile and the Jewish converts put away
every wife but the first, and annul every other contract?

"No man could have a fairer opportunity to bear his testimony against
a national sin than the Baptist had; for it is said, (Matthew iii, 5:)
' Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region
round about Jordan, and among the numbers who were baptized of him
in Jordan, confessing their sins, (verse 6,) there were many harlots.
(Chapter xxi, 32.) So that it is evident he did not spare to inveigh
most sharply against the sin of fleshy uncleanliness; had a plurality of
wives been of this kind, he doubtless would have preached against it,
which if he had, some trace would most probably have been left of it,
as there is of his preaching against the sin of whoredom, by the harlots
being said to have believed on him : which they certainly would not
have done any more than the Scribes and Pharisees, (Matthew xxi,
32,) if the preacher had not awakened them to a deep and real sense of
their guilt, by setting forth the heniousness of their sin. He exerted
his eloquence also against public aggrievances, such as the extortion of
the public officers of the revenue — the publicans — tax-gatherers — like-
wise against the oppressive methods used by the soldiery, who made it
a custom either to take people's goods by violence, or to defraud them
of their property, by extorting it under the terror of false accusation.
These were public grievances, against which the Baptist bore such open
testimony, that the soldiers and publicans came to him, saying : 'What
shall we do?' This being the case, is it conceivable that a man of the
Baptist's character, who was so zealous for the honor of the law as to
reprove even a king to his face for adultery, should suffer, if a plurality of
wives be adultery, a whole nation, as it were, of public adulterers, to
stand before him, and not bear the least testimony against them ? I do
say this is a conclusive but is surely a strong presumptive argument, thta
in the Baptist's views of the matter, a plurality of wives, whoredom,
and adultery were by no means the same thing.

"While this system of a plurality of wives was reverenced and ob-
served, we read of no adultery, whoredom, and common prostitution
of women among the daughters of Israel ; no brothels, street walking,
venereal diseases; no child-murder, and those other appendages of
female ruin which are too horrid to particularize. Nor were these things
possible, which, since the revocation of the Divine system and the es-
tablishment of human systems, are become inevitable. The supposing
our blessed Saviour came to destroy the Divine law, or alter it with
respect to marriage, is to suppose Him laying a foundation for the mis-
ery and destruction of the weaker sex."

Rev. Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, clergymen of the Church of
England, joint authors of " The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," pub-
lished near the middle of the present century, in their commentary
upon the passage in the epistle to Timothy, relative to the one wife of
a bishop, say :

25

' ' In the corrupt facility of divorce allowed both by the Greek and
Roman law, it was very common for man and wife to separate and
marry other parties during the life of one another. Thus a man might
have three or four living wives; or rather women who had all success-
ively been his wives. * * * A similar code is [now] unhappily to
be found in Mauritius ; there * * * it is not uncommon to meet
in society three or four women who have all been the wives of the same
man. * * We believe it is this kind of successive polygamy,

rather than simultaneous polygamy, which is here spoken of as disquali-
fying for the Presbyterate. So Beza."

Rev. David A. Allen, D. D., a Congregationalist, and a missionary
of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, after a
professional residence of twenty-five years in Hindoostan, published a
work in 1856, entitled " India, Ancient and Modern," in which he
says, pp. 551-3 :

" Polygamy is practised in India among .the Hindoos, the Moham-
medans, the Loroastrians, and the Jews. It is allowed and recognized
by the Institutes of Menu, by the Koran, by the Lendavesta, and, the
Jews believe, by their scriptures, the Old Testament. It is recognized
by all the courts in India, native and English. The laws of the British
Parliment recognize polygamy among all these classes, when the mar-
riage connection has been formed according to the principles of their re-
ligion and to their established forms and usages. The marriage of a
Hindoo or a Mahommedan with his second or third wife is just as valid
and as legally binding on all parties as his marriage with his first wife ;
just as valid as the marriage of any Christian in the Church of England.
This man cannot divorce any of his wives if he would,
and it would be great injustice and cruelty to them and their children
if he should. * * * * His having become a Christian and em-
braced a purer faith will not release him from those obligations in view
of the English Government and courts, or of the native population.
Should he put them away, or all but one, they will still be legally his
wives, and cannot be married to another man. And further, they have
done nothing to deserve such unkindness, cruelty, and disgrace at his
hands. * * * * So far from vie wing polygamy as morally wrong,
they not unfrequently take a second or third wife with much reluctance,
and from a painful sense of duty to perpetuate their name, their family,
and their inheritance."

In an appendix to this work, Dr. Allen informs the world that the
subject of polygamy had been brought before the Calcutta Missionary
Conference, a body composed of the missionaries' of the various mis-
sionary societies of Great Britain and America, and including Bap-
tists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians,
and others, in consequence of the application of Christian converts,

26

who, having several wives each, to whom they had been legally
married, now desired admittance into the Christian Churches. After
frequent consultations and much consideration, the conference, says
Dr. Allen, came unanimously to the following conclusion :

" If a convert, before becoming a Christian, has married more wives
than one, in accordance with the practice of the Jewish and primitive
Christian churches, he shall be permitted to keep them all, but such a
person is not eligible to any office in the church"

These facts, as Dr. Allen asserts them, have a direct and an im-
portant bearing upon this bill and the accompanying report. They
prove that one of its main charges, that polygamy is abhorrent to
every Christian nation, is false, for the British Empire is a Christian
nation, and Hindoostan is an integral part of that empire, as much so
as its American provinces are, or as Ireland is. Hindoostan is a civil-
ized country, with school and colleges, and factories and railroads,
and telegraphs and newspapers. Yet the great mass of the people,
comprising more than eighty millions, are polygamists, and as such
they are recognized and protected by the laws of the British Parlia-
ment, and the courts of the Queen's Bench ; and the English and
American missionaries of the gospel who reside there, and have re-
sided there many years, and who know the practical working of
polygamy, have assembled together in solemn conference and unani-
mously pronounced it to be right, and in accordance with the practice
of the primitive Christian churches; and the French, the Spanish,
the Dutch, the Portuguese, and other Christian nations are known to
pursue a similar policy, and to allow the different peoples under their
governments, the free and unmolested enjoyment of their own religions
and their own marriage system, whether they are monogamous or
polygamous.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that I have not wearied your patience by this
citation of learned authorities upon the antiquity and universality of
the polygamic doctrines. My object in this part of my argument is
not to prove that polygamy is right or wrong, but simply to illustrate
that a doctrine, the practice of which has repeatedly been commanded
by the Almighty ; which was the rule of life with the Jews at the
time they were the chosen people of God, and were, in all things,
governed by His dictation ; which has among its supporters many of
the most eminent writers of the Christian church of all ages, and
which is now sanctioned by law and usage in many of the christianized
provinces of the British Empire, is not wrong in itself. It is a doc-

27

trine, the practice of which, from the precedents cited, is clearly not
inconsistent with the highest purity of character, and the most exem-
plary Christian life. My opponents may argue that it is unsuited to
the civilization of the age, or is the offspring of a religious delusion ; but
if so, its remedy is to be sought through persuasion, and not by the exer-
cise of force ; it is the field for the missionary and not for the jurist or sol-
dier. It is a noble and a Christian work to purify and enlighten a be-
nighted soul ; to lift up those who are fallen and ready to perish ; but from
all the pulpits of the land comes up the cry that the fields are white for
the harvest, while the laborers are few. So soon, however, as the
Luthers, the Melancthons, the Whitfields of to-day, have wiped out
the immorality, licentiousness and crime of the older communities, and
have made their average morality equal to that of the city of Salt
Lake, let them transfer their field of labor to the wilds of Utah, and
may God forever prosper the right.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that men abler and more learned in the law
than I, will discuss the legal monstrosities of this bill, fraught with
evil, as it is, not only to the citizen of Utah, but to the nation at
large ; but must be pardoned for calling special attention to the seventh
section, which gives to a single officer, the United States marshal, with
the clerk of the court, the absolute right of selecting a jury ; and, fur-
ther, to the 10th section, which provides that persons entertaining an
objectionable religious theory — not those who have been guilty of the
practice of polygamy, but who have simply a belief in the abstract
theory of plural marriage — shall be disqualified as jurors.

To see what a fearful blow this is at the very foundation of our lib-
erties ; what a disastrous precedent for future tyranny, let us recall for
a moment the history of the trial by jury ; something with which all
are as familiar as with the decalogue, but which, like the ten
commandments, may occasionally be recalled with profit. Jury trial
was first known as a trial per pais ; by the country ; and the theory
was, that when a crime had been committed, the whole community
came together and sat in judgment upon the offender. This process
becoming cumbersome as population increased, twelve men were drawn
ly lot from the country, thus securing, as was supposed, a representa-
tion of the average public sentiment of the whole country, and which
was further secured by requiring the finding of the jury to be unani-
mous.

A fair trial by jury, by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, was regarded aa

28

so precious, that in Magna Charta it is more than once insisted on as
the principal bulwark of English liberty.

Blackstone says of it : " It is the glory of the English law. It is
the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish
for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty or
his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors
and equals ; a provision which has, under Providence, secured the
just liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages."

• Our own people have been no whit behind the English in their
high appreciation of the trial by jury. In the original Federal Con-
stitution, it was provided simply that the " trial of all crimes, except
in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The framers of the
Constitution considered that the meaning of "trial by jury " was
sufficiently settled by long established usage and legal precedent, and
that the provision just cited was sufficient. But such was not the
view of the people. One of the most serious objections to the adoption
of the Constitution by the States was its lack of clearness upon this
most vital point, and Alexander Hamilton, in one of the ablest and
most carefully considered numbers of The Federalist, endeavored to
explain away this objection. The Constitution was adopted, but the
nation was not satisfied ; and one of the earliest amendments to that
instrument further provided that " no person shall be held to answer
for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury," and that " in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed, which district shall have been previously ascer-
tained by law."

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it will be observed with what scrupulous solici-
tude our ancestors watched over this great safeguard of the liberties
of the people. Nothing was left to inference or established precedent,
but to every citizen was guaranteed in this most solemn manner an
impartial trial by a jury of his neighbors and his peers, residents of
the district where the offence was charged.

Now, sir, is there any member of this House who will claim or
pretend that the provisions of this bill are not in violation of this
most sacred feature in our bill of rights ? The trial by jury by this
bill is worse than abolished, for its form — a sickening farce — remains
while its spirit is utterly gone. A packed jury is worse than no jury
at all. The merest tyro in the law, knows that the essence of a trial

29

by jury consists in the fact that the accused is tried by a jury drawn
by lot from among his neighbors ; a jury drawn without previous
knowledge, choice, or selection on the part of the Government ; a
jury which will be a fair epitome of the district where the offence is
charged, and thus such a tribunal, as will agree to no verdict except
guch as, substantially, the whole community would agree to, if present
and taking part in the trial. Any other system of trial by jury is a
mockery and a farce. The standard of public morality varies greatly
in a country so vast as ours, and the principle of a jury trial recog-
nizes this fact, and wisely provides, in effect, that no person shall be
punished who, when brought to the bar of public opinion in the com-
munity where the alleged offence is committed, is not adjudged to
have been guilty of a crime. This most unconstitutional and wicked
bill before us, defies all these well-established principles, and strikes
at the root of the dearest rights of the citizen. I have an earnest and
abiding faith in the bright future of my native land ; but if our national
career, as we may fondly hope, shall stretch out before us its unend-
ing glories, it will be because of the prompt and decisive rebuke, by
the representatives of the people here, of all such legislation as that
sought in the bill before us.

I have touched more fully, Mr. Speaker, upon the feature of the
bill virtually abolishing jury trial, than upon any other, because of its
more conspicuous disregard of constitutional right. But the whole
bill, from first to last, is most damnable in its provisions, and most
unworthy of consideration by the representatives of a free people.
This is an age of great religious toleration. This bill recalls the
fearful days of the Spanish inquisition, or the days when, in New
England, Quakers were persecuted or banished, and witches burned
at the stake. It is but a short time since the country hailed with
satisfaction a treaty negotiated on the part of a Pagan nation through
the efforts of a former member of this body, and whose recent death
has filled our hearts with sadness, whereby the polygamous Chinese
emigrants to our shores are protected in the enjoyment of their
idolatrous faith, and may erect their temples, stocked with idols, and
perform their, to us, heathenish worship in every part of our land
unquestioned. And while the civilized nations of Europe have com-
bined to sustain and perpetuate a heathen nation practising polygamy
in its lowest form, and are hailing with acclamation the approach of
its head, the American Congress is actually deliberating over a bill

30

which contemplates the destruction of an industrious people, and the
expulsion of the great organizer of border civilization. Can it be
possible that the national Congress will even for a moment, seriously
contemplate the persecution or annihilation of an integral portion of
our citizens, whose industry and material development are the nation's
pride, because of a slight difference in their religious faith ? A dif-
ference, too, not upon the fundamental truths of our common Chris-
tianity, but because of their conscientious adherence to what was once
no impropriety even, but a virtue ? This toleration in matters of
religion, which is perhaps the most conspicuous feature of our civil-
ization, arises not from any indifference to the sacred truths of Chris-
tianity, but from an abiding faith in their impregnability — a national
conviction that truth is mighty and will prevail. We have adopted
as our motto the sentiment of Paul : ' 'Try all things ; prove all things,
and hold fast to that which is good.' ' The ancient Jewish rabbi, in
Jiis serene confidence that God would remember his own, was typical
of the spirit of our age: "Refrain from these men and let them
alone, for if this counsel or this work be of God, ye cannot overthrow
it; but if it be of men, it will come to nought."

I have the honor of representing here a constituency probably the
most vigorously lied about of any people in the nation. I should
insult the good sense of this House and of the American people did I
stoop to a refutation of the countless falsehoods which have been cir-
culated for years in reference to the people of Utah. These falsehoods
have a common origin — a desire to plunder the treasury of the nation.
They are the children of a horde of bankrupt speculators, anxious to
grow rich through the sacrifice even of human life. During the ad-
ministration of Mr. Buchanan, a Mormon war was inaugurated, in great
measure through the statements of Judge W. W. Drummond, a man
of infamous character and life, and who is cited as authority in the
report accompanying this bill. His statement, as there published,
that the Mormons had destroyed all the records, papers, &c., of the
supreme Federal court of the Territory, and grossly insulted the Federal
officers for opposing such destruction, was, as I have been informed by
unquestionable authority, one of, if not the principal cause of the so-
called Mormon war. An army was sent to Utah ; twenty or thirty
millions of dollars were expended, before the Government bethought
itself to inquire whether such statements were true ; then inquiry
was made, and it was learned that the whole statement was entirely

31

false; that the records were perfect and unimpaired.* Whereupon^
the war ended, but not until colossal fortunes were accumulated by
the hangers-on and contractors for the army, who had incited the
whole affair. These men, and numerous would-be imitators, long for
the return of that golden age. They fill the ears of the public with
slanders and with falsehoods; that murders are rife; that life and
property are unsafe in Utah without the presence of large armies.
They have even sometimes induced Federal territorial officers, through
ignorance or design, to become their tools to help forward their infa-
mous work. But since the railroad was completed, many of the
American people have looked for themselves. They see in Utah the
most peaceful and persistently industrious people on the continent.
They judge the tree by its fruits. They read that a community
given up to lust does not build factories and fill the land with thrifty
farms. That a nation of thieves and murderers do not live without
intoxicating liquors, and become famous for the products of their
dairies, orchards, and gardens. A corrupt tree bringeth not forth the
fruits of temperance, Christianity, industry ^nd order.

Mr. Speaker, those who have been so kind and indulgent as to
follow me thus far will have observed that I have aimed, as best I
might, to show—

\ . That under our Constitution we are entitled to be protected in
the full and free enjoyment of our religious faith.

2. That our views of the marriage relation are an essential portion
of our religious faith.

3. That in considering the cognizance of the marriage relation as
within the province of church regulations, we are practically in
accord with all other Christian denominations.

Extract from report of Governor Gumming :

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, U. T., May 2, 1858.

gm_ * * ##**•**

Since my arrival, I have been employed in examining the records of the supreme
and district courts, which I am now prepared to report upon as being perfect and
unimpaired. This will doubtless be acceptable information to those who have en-
tertained an impression to the contrary.

I have also examined the legislative records and other books belonging to the
office of the Secretary of State, which are in perfect preservation.

% % ' -% -.•:- * * * * #

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. GUMMING,

Governor of Utah.

Hon. LEWIS CASS,

Secretary of State, Washington, 1). L.

32

V 4. That in our views of the marriage relation as a part of our
religious belief, we are entitled to immunity from persecution under
the Constitution if such views are sincerely held ; that if such views
are erroneous, their eradication must be by argument and not by force.

5. That of our sincerity we have both by words, and works, and
sufferings, given for nearly 40 years, abundant proof.

6. That the bill, in practically abolishing trial by jury, as well as
in many other respects, is unconstitutional, uncalled for, and in direct
opposition to that toleration in religious belief which is characteristic
of the nation and the age.

It is not permitted, Mr. Speaker, that any one man should sit as
the judge of any other as regards his religious belief. This is a
matter which rests solely between each individual and his God. The
responsibility cannot be shifted or divided. It is a matter outside
the domain of legislative action. The world is full of religious error
and delusion, but its eradication is the work of the moralist and not
of the legislator. Our Constitution throws over all sincere worship-
pers, at whatever shrine, its guarantee of absolute protection. The
moment we assume to judge of the truthfulness or error of any creed,
the constitutional guarantee is a mockery and a sham.

Three times have rny people been dispersed by mob violence, and
each time they have arisen stronger from the conflict ; and now the
doctrine of violence is proposed in Congress. It may be the will of
the Lord that, to unite and purify us, it is necessary for further vio-
lence, suffering and blood. If so, we humbly and reverently submit
to the will of Him in whose hands are all the issues of human life.
Heretofore we have suffered from the violence of the mob ; now, the
mob are to be clothed in the authority of an unconstitutional and
oppressive law. If this course be decided upon, I can only say that
the hand that smites us smites the most sacred guarantees of the
Constitution, and the blind Samson, breaking the pillars, pulls down
upon friend and. foe alike the ruins of the State.

41sT CONGRESS, j SENATE. ( Mis. Doo.

2d Session, j j No. 112.

MEMOEIAL

ADOPTED BY

CITIZENS OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TERRITORY,

AT

A mass meeting held in said city March 31, 1870, remonstrating
against the passage of the bill (H. R. No. 1089) " in aid of the
execution of the laws in the Territory of Utah, and for other
purposes."

APRIL 12, 1870. — Referred to the Committee on Territories and ordered to be

printed.

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States in Congress assembled :

GENTLEMEN — It is with no ordinary concern that we have learned
of the passage by the House of Representatives of the House bill No.
1089, entitled "A bill in aid of the execution of the laws in Utah,
and for other purposes," commonly known as " the Cullom bill,"
against which we desire to enter our most earnest and unqualified
protest, and appeal against its passage by the Senate of the United
States, or beg its reconsideration by the House of Representatives.
We are sure you will bear with us while we present for your consid-
eration some of the reasons why this bill should not become law

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives : 0
150,000 estimated population of the Territory of Utah, it is well
known that all except from five thousand to ten thousand are mem-
bers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, usually
called Mormons. These are essentially the people of this Territory ;
they have settled it, reclaimed the desert waste, cultivated it, subdued
the Indians, opened means of communication, made roads, built cities,
towns, and settlements, established government, encouraged education,
and brought into being a new State to add lustre to the national
galaxy of our glorious Union. And we, the people who have done
this, are believers in the principle of plural marriage or polygamy,
not simply as an elevating social relationship and a preventive of
many terrible evils which afflict our race, but as a principle revealed
by God, underlying our every hope of eternal salvation and happiness
in heaven. We believe in the pre-existence of the spirits of men;
that God is the author of our being ; that marriage is ordained as the
legitimate source by which mankind obtained an existence in this

33

34

probation on the earth ; that the marriage relation exists and extends
throughout eternity, and that without it no man can obtain an exalta-
tion in the celestial kingdom of God. The revelation commanding
the principle of plural marriage, given by God through Joseph Smith
to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in its first para-
graph has the following language : " Behold, I reveal unto you a new
and everlasting covenant ; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are
ye damned ; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to
enter into my glory." With this language before us, we cannot view
plural marriage in any other light than as a vital principle of our
religion. Let the revelation appear in the eyes of others as it may,
to us it is a divine command, of equal force with any ever given by
the Creator of the world to His children in the flesh.

The Bible confessedly stands in our nation as the foundation on
which all law is based. It is the fountain from which our ideas of
right and wrong are drawn, and it gives shape and force to our mo-
rality. Yet it sustains plural marriage, and in no instance does it
condemn that institution. Not only having, therefore, a revelation
from God making the belief and practice of this principle obligatory
upon us, we have the warrant of the Holy Scriptures and the example
of prophets and righteous men whom God loved, honored, and blessed.
And it should be borne in mind that when this principle was promul-
gated, and the* people of this Territory entered upon its practice, it
was not a crime. God revealed it to us. His divine word, as con-
tained in the Bible which we had been taught to venerate and regard
as holy, upheld it, and there was no law applicable to us making our
belief or practice of it criminal. It is no crime in this Territory to-
day, only as the law of 1862, passed long years after our adoption of
this principle as a part of our religious faith, makes it such. The
law of 1862 is now a fact; one proscription gives strength to another.
What yesterday was opinion is liable to-day to be law. It is for this
reason that we earnestly and respectfully remonstrate and protest
against the passage of the bill now before the honorable Senate, feeling
assured that, while it cannot accomplish any possible good, it may
result in a great amount of misery.

It gives us no alternative but the cruel one of rejecting God's com-
mand and abjuring our religion, or disobeying the authority of a
government we desire to honor and respect.

It is in direct violation of the first amendment of the Constitution,
which declares that " Congress shall make no law respecting an es-
tablishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It robs our priesthood of their functions and heaven-bestowed
powers, and gives them to justices of the Supreme Court, justices of
the peace, and priests whose authority we cannot recognize, by em-
powering such as the only ones to celebrate marriage. As well might
the law prescribe who shall baptize for the remission of sins, or lay
on hands for the reception of the Holy. Ghost.

It encourages fornication and adultery, for all such marriages would

35

be deemed invalid and without any sacred or binding force by our
community, and those thus united together would, according to their
own belief and religious convictions, be living in a condition of ha-
bitual adultery, which would bring the holy relation of marriage into
disrepute, and destroy the safeguards of chastity and virtue.

It is unconstitutional in that it is in direct opposition to section nine,
article one, of the Constitution, which provides that " no bill of
attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

It destroys the right of trial by jury, providing for the impaneling
of juries composed of individuals the recognized enemies of the accused
and of foreigners to the district where a case under it is to be tried ;
while the sixth amendment to the Constitution provides that " in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed."

It is contrary to the eighth amendment to the Constitution, which
provides that excessive fines shall not be imposed, •' nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted."

It violates section eight, article one, of the Constitution, which pro-
vides that Congress shall establish a uniform rule of naturalization
throughout the United States, in that it provides, in section seventeen,
a new, unheard-of, and special rule, applicable only to the Territory
of Utah.

It is anti-republican, in that in section ten it places men on unequal
ground, by giving one portion of the citizens superior privileges over
others, because of their belief.

It strips us in sections seventeen and twenty-six of the land we
have reclaimed from barrenness and which we have paid Government
for ; also of all possessory rights to which we are entitled as settlers.

It authorizes by section fourteen the sending of criminals into dis-
tant military camps and prisons.

It is most unjust, unconstitutional, and proscriptive, in that it dis-
franchises and proscribes American citizens for no act but simply
believing in plurality of wives, which the bill styles polygamy, bigamy,
or concubinage, even if they never have practised or designed to prac-
tise it.

It offers a premium for prostitution and corruption, in that it re-
quires, in sections eleven and twelve, husbands and wives to violate
the holiest vows they can make and voluntarily bastardize their own
children.

It declares, in section twenty-one, marriage to be a civil contract,
and names the officers who alone shall solemnize the rite, when our
faith expressly holds it as a most sacred ordinance, which can only
be administered by those holding the authority from Heaven ; thus
compelling us to discriminate in favor of officers appointed by the
Government and against officers authorized by the Almighty.

It thus takes away the right of conscience, and deprives us of an
ordinance upon the correct administration of which our happiness and
eternal salvation depend.

36

It not only subverts religious liberty, but in sections sixteen and
nineteen violates every principle of civil liberty and true republicanism,
in that it bestows upon the Governor the sole authority to govern
jails and prisons, and to remove their wardens and keepers ; to appoint
and remove probate judges, justices of the peace, judges of all elec-
tions, notaries public and all sheriffs ; clothing one man with despotic
and, in this Republic, unheard-of power.

It thus deprives the people of all voice in the government of the
Territory, reduces them to abject vassalage, creates a dangerous, irre-
sponsible and centralized despotism from which there is no appeal,
and leaves their lives, liberties, and every human right subject to the
caprice of one man, and that man selected and sent here from afar.

It proposes, in sections eleven, twelve, and seventeen, to punish
American citizens, not for wrongs, but for acts sanctioned by God and
practised by His most favored servants, requiring them to call those
bad men whom God chose for His oracles and delighted to honor,
and even to cast reflections on the ancestry of the Saviour himself.

It strikes at the foundation of all republican government, in that it
dictates opinions and belief, prescribes what shall and shall not be
believed by citizens, and assumes to decide on the validity of revela-
tion from Almighty God, the author of existence.

It disorganizes and reduces to a chaotic condition every precinct,
city, and county in the Territory of Utah, and substitutes no adequate
organization. It subverts, by summary process, nearly every law on
our statute-book.

It violates the faith of the United States, in that it breaks the orig-
inal compact made with the people of this Territory in the organic
act, who were, at the time that compact was made, received as citizens
from Mexican territory, and known to be believers in the doctrine of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We also wish your honorable bodies to understand that the legisla-
ture of this Territory has never passed any law affecting the primary
disposal of the soil, but only adopted regulations for the controlling of
our claims and possessions, upon which improvements to the amount
of millions of dollars have been made.

This bill, in section thirty-six, repeals the law of the Territory con-
taining said regulations, thereby leaving us destitute of legal protection
to our hard-earned possessions, the accumulated labor of over twenty
years, and exposing us to the mercy of laud speculators and vampires.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives, this bill,
which would deprive us of religious liberty and every political right
worth having, is not directed against the people of Utah as men and
women, but against their holy religion. Eighteen years ago, and ten
years before the passage of the anti-polygamy act of 1862, one of our
leading men, Elder Orson Pratt, was expressly deputed and sent to
the city of Washington, D. C., to publish and lecture on the principle
of patriarchal or plural marriage as practised by us.

He lectured frequently in that and other cities, and published a

37

paper for some length of time, in which he established, by elaborate
and convincing arguments, the divinity of the revelation commanding
plural marriage, given through the prophet Joseph Smith, and that
the doctrine was sanctioned and endorsed by the highest biblical au-
thority. For ten years before the passage of the act of 1862 this
doctrine was widely preached throughout the Union and the world,
and it was universally known and recognized as a principle of our
holy faith. We are thus explicit in mentioning this fact to show that
patriarchal marriage has long been understood to be a cardinal princi-
ple of our religion. We would respectfully mention, also, in this con-
•nection, that while hundreds of our leading elders have been in the
Eastern States and in the city of Washington, not one of them has
been cited to appear as a witness before the Committee on Territories
to prove that this doctrine is a part of our religion, gentlemen well
knowing that if that were established, the proposed law would be null
and void because of its unconstitutionality.

What we have done to enhance the greatness and glory of our
country by pioneering, opening up, and making inhabitable the vast
western region, is before the nation, and should receive a nation's
thanks, not a prescriptive edict to rob us of every right worth pos-
sessing, and of the very soil we have reclaimed and then purchased
from the Government. Before this soil was United States territory
we settled it, and five hundred of our best men responded to the call
of Government in the war with Mexico, and assisted in adding it to
the national domain. When we were received into the Union our
religion was known; our early officers, including our first Governor,
were nearly all Latter-day Saints or "Mormons," for there were few
others to elect from ; we were treated as citizens possessing equal
rights, and the original bond of agreement between the United States
Government and the people inhabiting this Territory conferred upon
us the right of self-government in the same degree as is enjoyed by
other Territories in the Union.

It declared that the power of the legislature of this Territory " shall
extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Con-
stitution of the United States and the provisions of the organic act ;
and the right of suffrage and holding office shall be exercised by citi-
zens of the United States," including those recognized as citizens by
the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2, 1848.
This compact or agreement we have preserved inviolate on our part,
and we respectfully submit that it is not in the power of any legisla-
ture or Congress, legally and constitutionally, to abrogate and annul
such an agreement as the organic law, which this bill proposes to do,
without the consent of both parties. Our property, lands, and build-
ings, private arid public, are to be confiscated ; our rights of citizenship
destroyed; our men and women subjected to excessive pains and
penalties because we believe in and practise a principle taught by the
Bible, commanded by divine revelation to us, and sustained by the
Christian monarchies of Great Britain and France among millions of
their subjects in their territories of India and Algeria.

38

We earnestly, we solemnly appeal to you not to permit this iniqui-
tous, unjustly discriminating, and anti-republican measure to become
law, (and that, too, in violation of the Constitution,) by which a hun-
dred and fifty thousand industrious, peaceable, and orderly persons
will be driven to the desperate necessity of disobeying Almighty God,
the Governor of the universe, or of subjecting themselves to the pains
and penalties of this act, which would be worse than death.

We beseech of you, gentlemen, do not, by the passage of harsh
and despotic measures, drive an inoffensive, God-fearing, and loyal
people to desperation.

We have suffered, God knows how much, in years past for our re--
ligion. We fled to the mountain wilds to escape the ruthless hand
of persecution ; and shall it be said now that our Government, which
ought to foster and protect us, designs to repeat, in the most aggra-
vated form, the miseries we have been called upon to pass through
before ?

What evidence can we give you that plural marriage is a part of
our religion, other than what we have done by our public teaching
and publishing for years past ? If your honorable bodies are not
satisfied with what we now present, and what we have previously
published to the world, we beseech you, in the name of our common
country and those sacred principles bequeathed unto us by our revo-
lutionary fathers, in the name of humanity, and in. the name of
Almighty God, before making this act a law, to send to this Territory
a commission clothed with the necessary authority to take evidence
and make a thorough and exhaustive investigation into the subject,
and obtain evidence concerning the belief and workings of our religious
system from its friends, instead of its enemies.

All of which, with the accompanying resolutions, is respectfully
submitted to your favorable consideration .

JOHN M. BERNHISEL, ' DANIEL H. WELLS,

ELIAS SMITH, JOHN TAYLOR,

JOS. A. YOUNG, Z. SNOW,

WILFORD WOODRUFF, HOSEA STOUT,

ORSON PRATT. SR., J. C. LITTLE,

•S. W. RICHARDS, AURELIUS MINER,
GEO. Q. CANNON,

Committee appointed to draught remonstrance.

This is to certify that the foregoing remonstrance was unanimously
adopted by a general mass meeting of the citizens of Salt Lake City
on Thursday, March 31, 1870.

DANIEL H. WELLS,
President of the General Mass Meeting.
ROB'T L. CAMPBELL,
THEODORE McKEAN,
PAUL A. SCHETTLER,
DAVID McKENZIE,
Secretaries of the General Mass Meeting.

39

RESOLUTIONS.

Whereas the Supreme Ruler of the universe has the right to com-
mand man in the concerns of life, which it is man's duty to obey ; and
whereas, according to the positive knowledge of a large number of
persons now assembled, the doctrine of celestial marriage, or plurality
of wives, was revealed to the prophet, Joseph Smith, and by him es-
tablished in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a
revealed law of God : Therefore,

Be it resolved, That we, the members of said church, in general
mass meeting assembled, do now most earnestly and solemnly declare
before Almighty God that we hold that said order of marriage is a
cardinal principle of our religious faith, affecting us not only for
time but for all eternity, and as sacred and binding as any other prin-
ciple of the holy gospel of the Sou of God.

Resolved, That celestial marriage, or plurality of wives, is that
principle of our holy religion which confers on man the power of end-
less lives or eternal increase, and is therefore beyond the purview of
legislative enactments, the woman being married to the man for all
eternity by authority of the holy priesthood delegated from God to
him.

Resolved, That marriage is enjoined upon man both by revealed
and by natural laws.

Resolved, That the practice of plural marriage in this Territory
was not a crime, nor in violation of any constitutional or divine law.
In 1862 it was first declared to be otherwise by Congressional enact-
ment, and never by any act of ours.

Kesolved, That we concur with the Roman Catholic Church, the
Greek Church, the Church of England, and other religious denomina-
tions, in believing marriage to be a religious ordinance, and we believe
it to be unconstitutional to proscribe our consciences by legislative
enactment, or to declare it a civil contract only. " What God hath
joined together let no man put asunder." If not allowed to be saints,
at least permit us to be Christians.

Resolved, That the passage of a law which compels husbands to
abandon their wives, parents their children, and absolves those solemn
covenants by which they are eternally bound to each other in their
associations, would be not only a reproach upon civilized government,
but in direct violation of the law of God, and, when made applicable
to only one Territory, is partial legislation and a flagrant act of per-
secution.

Resolved, That while we thank the American Bible Society for
sending us the word of God, we think it a strange inconsistency for
a Christian nation, which has received its Bible from inspired men
who were polygamists, to send that Bible to us and then proscribe
and disfranchise us for following the precepts thereof and the practices
of its inspired prophets.

Resolved, That while England and France, both civilized and
Christian nations, protect and tolerate over a hundred millions of

40

polygamists in their territories in India and Algeria, it is invidious,
ungenerous, and prescriptive for enlightened republican America not
to allow in her Territories the same freedom enjoyed under the gov-
ernment of those monarchies.

Resolved, That religious and civil liberty are both essential to the
perpetuity of republican governments, and that in destroying one you
destroy the other.

Resolved, That we tender to God, our Father in Heaven, our most
sincere and hearty thanks for His great blessings and kindness to our
fathers in inspiring them to establish the Constitution of the United
States on the basis of civil and religious liberty, and that he put it into
their hearts to make that instrument the supreme law, which should
not, in any emergency, be transcended, and by which all should be
bound.

Resolved, That forty millions of enlightened American citizens,
with half a million of priests, philanthropists, and editors, ought to be
able to control, without the aid of legislative enactments, an institution
which they call objectionable and immoral, through the influence of
religion, the power of the press, and moral suasion, against one hun-
ered and fifty thousand people who consider it a divine institution.

The foregoing resolutions were unanimously adopted at a general
mass meeting of the citizens of Salt Lake City on Thursday, March
31, 1870.

DANIEL H. WELLS,
President of General. Mass Meeting.
JOHN M. BERNHISEL,
JOHN TAYLOR,
WILFORD WOODRUFF,
ORSON PRATT, SR ,
JOSEPH F. SMITH,
JOS. A. YOUNG,
GEO. Q. CANNON,
Vice- Presidents of General Mass Meeting.
THEODORE McKBAN,
PAUL A. SCHETTLER,
ROBT. L. CAMPBELL,
DAVID McKENZIE,
Secretaries of General Mass Meeting.

Gaylord Bros.

Stockton, Calif.

PAT. JAN 21. 1908