Defense of the Faith and the Saints. B. H. Roberts

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES.

      I now come to the speech itself; my reply will follow the order of the topics set forth in the speech, with very slight exceptions; and by reason of following the order of topics laid down in the speech, I come first of all to the consideration of the pledges under which Utah obtained statehood—the compact between the State of Utah and the United States.

      Of that long conflict that raged in Utah from early days down to the year 1890 I need not speak. You are familiar with its history. You know that the foundation facts of that controversy are these: that the Latter-day Saints believed a revelation had been given in which was made known, first of all, the eternity of the marriage covenant, with the permission and I may say injunction, under certain circumstances, for good men to have a plurality of wives. You know of the successive enactments of Congress, made at the demand of sectarian clamor throughout the United States against this practice. You know how these successive acts brought to bear hardships upon the Church, until at last we were relieved from the responsibility and obligation of maintaining in practice that plural marriage system, by the issuance of the Manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff in 1890. You know upon that step being taken, that the bitterness of feeling that had hitherto existed subsided; and there began to be manifested a desire that the old Church and anti-Church political parties should be disbanded, and that here in Utah, as in the other states of the Union, the people should divide according to their political convictions to one or the other of the great national political parties. These movements finally resulted in the passage of an Enabling Act, authorizing the election of a Constitutional convention for the purpose of framing a state government. This convention met in the spring of 1895, and was the instrument through which so far as the people of Utah are concerned, the compact between the State of Utah and the United States was made.

      When it is necessary to establish what a given compact is, instead of calling to mind this man's opinion, and that man's opinion of it, why not go to the compact itself, and after considering it give it a fair interpretation? That is the method of treatment that I have proposed to myself, and consequently I am going to that compact. The Enabling act contained this clause, which was the crystallized demand of the people of the United States upon the people of Utah:

      "And said convention shall provide by ordinance, irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of said state:

      "First, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secure, and that no inhabitant of said state shall be molested in person on account of his or her mode of religious worship; provided that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

      That is what the people of the United States demanded of the people of Utah through the voice of the national Congress—nothing more than that, nothing less than that. Polygamous or plural marriages are to be forever prohibited. That is the demand of the people of the United States.

      That being the demand, what was the response to it on the part of the people of Utah, speaking through the Constitutional convention? This was the response:

      ORDINANCE.

      "The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of the state:

      "First, perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

      You will observe that the convention incorporated in this provision the very language of the Enabling act.

      That was the demand, and that the response to the demand. But it was not all of the response. There was something more. After this declaration had been made, towards the conclusion of the work of the convention, when that part of the Constitution called the "Schedule" was introduced (and by the way, in order that you may understand that I have clear knowledge of these matters from personal participation in them, I may say that I was a member of the committee on "Schedule"), Mr. Varian, a member from Salt Lake county, called the attention of the convention to the fact that while we had made this declaration against "polygamous or plural marriages," he held, and very rightly, too, that it was not self-operating, and provided no penalties for its violation; but was merely a declaration, and he doubted if it would be sufficient to meet the expectations of the people of the United States. He therefore recommended a certain course now to be described. You perhaps will remember that our territorial Legislature of 1892 enacted what was virtually the Edmunds-Tucker law. They followed very closely the congressional enactment. Now, said Mr. Varian, in substance, your Legislature enacted practically the law of Congress against these offenses; that being the case, it expresses the willingness of your legislators to meet the demands of the country on this subject. Therefore, let us take so much of this territorial enactment as defines "polygamy, or plural marriage," and provides for the punishment thereof, and make it a provision in this Constitution, operating without any further legislation. Then the people of the United States will know that you mean really to prohibit "polygamous or plural marriages" against which you make your declaration in the ordinance. In pursuance of this proposition he introduced this resolution:

      "The act of the governor and Legislative Assembly of the territory of Utah, entitled, 'An act to punish polygamy and other kindred offenses,' approved Feb. 4, AD 1892, in so far as the same defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to be in force in the State of Utah."

      Mr. Varian was of the opinion that since this territorial enactment invaded the field already occupied by congressional enactment it was void, and that when Utah became a state the territorial law would not be in force in the state, and of course the congressional enactments applicable to the territory would cease to be operative upon the attainment of statehood; hence he thought it necessary to make this constitutional provision against "polygamous or plural marriages." But the part of the territorial law relating to polygamous living or "unlawful cohabitation"—to use the phrase of the law itself—was not made part of the Constitution of this state. And why? Because the demand made by the people of the United States did not reach to that condition. The demand was only: "provided polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." There were other lawyers in the constitutional convention who contested Mr. Varian's opinion, and insisted that this law of the territory would be operative in the state, and therefore there was no need of adopting his amendment; whereupon a protracted and earnest debate took place, in the course of which it was pointed out to Mr. Varian that he had cut this old territorial law in two; he had taken the part that defined and prohibited "polygamy or plural marriages" and made it part of the Constitution, but he had left out the part of the law relating to unlawful cohabitation, and the effect of such action by implication would be to repeal that part of the territorial law defining and punishing unlawful cohabitation. In the course of the argument made on that point in the convention the following took place:

      Mr. Evans (Weber)—I would like to ask you [Mr. Varian] a question. The gentleman will agree with me that your [his] amendment will repeal the other kindred offenses in that statute?"

      Mr. Varian [answering Mr. Evans]—No; there is nothing to repeal. If you want the other kindred offenses [dealt with], my answer is, prohibit them by law under penalties. * * * *

      Mr. Evans (Weber)—I would like to ask one question. Suppose the act of 1892 were valid? (i.e., the territorial law dealing with polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, polygamous living, is referred to)—

      Mr. Varian—If the law were valid I should not then introduce—

      Mr. Evans (Weber)—Wouldn't it then repeal everything except the polygamy?

      Mr. Varian—If the law were valid it might repeal by implication, although repeals by implication are not favored.[1]

      Mr. СКАЧАТЬ