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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Varian's resolution was adopted and became part of the Constitution, so that in the matter of compact between Utah and the United States on the subject of polygamy [i.e., polygamous marrying] our response went even beyond the demand of the people of the United States as voiced in the Enabling act authorizing us to establish a state government, in that we not only adopted the very language of the enabling act, but accepted the definition of polygamy and provided the punishment, prescribed for that offense by Congress; but no demand was made and no action was taken respecting unlawful cohabitation; nor did it in any manner enter into Utah's compact with the United States.[1]

      "In accordance with the general convictions of civilized men and the spirit of free institutions, religious liberty will be fully secured by the organic law and a prohibition against plural or polygamous marriages adopted in deference to the suggestion by Congress. Whether it shall ever be stricken from the Constitution will depend solely upon the future temper and will of the people. It will be observed that the actual polygamous status, or living with two or more women as wives, known in Utah as a criminal offense termed "unlawful cohabitation," is not referred to in the proviso of the Enabling Act. Whether the Constitution builders will content themselves with prohibiting polygamous marriages, or will go further and prescribe the polygamous association also will be developed in time."

      And time developed the fact that the Constitutional Convention took no action whatsoever in relation to polygamous living, nor was any attempt made to deal with that phase of the question since the convention conceived that it had done its full duty, all that was required of it, by the Enabling Act, by "Forever prohibiting plural or polygamous marriages."]

      Now, understand me, I am not taking the ground that unlawful cohabitation—"polygamous living"—as it has come to be called—is not now contrary to the law in Utah. That it is under the ban of the law is known to every one. But it became so because our state Legislature, after the constitutional convention had settled this vexed question upon the terms here pointed out—our state Legislature (and why I have never yet understood) proceeded to unsettle what had been settled in that convention, picked up the part of the old territorial law that had been discarded by the convention and enacted it with the rest of the code prepared by the special code commission.

      Hence unlawful cohabitation is under the ban by our state enactment; and I am not arguing that polygamous living is not against the law, and am not attempting to justify any one in the violation of that law. I am now merely pointing out the fact that in our compact with the government of the United States disruption of marital relations coming down to us out of the past constituted no part of that compact. The terms of the compact are here in the Enabling act and in the Constitution, and may be read and known of all men.

      That compact was not made between the Mormon Church leaders, as claimed by Mr. Kearns' adopted speech, and the United States government, but between the people of the United States acting through Congress and the chief executive of the nation, and the people of Utah, acting through their representatives in the Constitutional convention. Utah's Constitutional convention sought earnestly to meet the demands made upon our people by the nation. The chief executive of the nation by accepting the Constitution we had formed and proclaiming Utah's admission into the Union, said we had succeeded in meeting those demands. To undertake now to read into that compact something that was not demanded by the Enabling act, and not conceded by the convention, that is not expressly found in its terms, and not fairly to be implied from them, is infamous. Yet that is what is constantly sought to be done, and we have all sorts of extravagant claims made as to what the Mormon Church leaders pledged in order to obtain statehood—the compact they made with the nation, and how the Mormon Church has broken it, but never a word do we hear as to the compact itself. The Mormon Church leaders made no pledges to obtain statehood, except as in common with all the people of the state they accepted and ratified the compact implied in the Enabling act and the provision in the Utah Constitution forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages and providing penalties for that offense. The Mormon Church officials pleaded for amnesty for their people, it is true, but amelioration of the hard conditions which a cruel enforcement of the law imposed, not statehood, was the object of their petition.

      The foregoing, then, was the compact between the State of Utah and the United States. The question now is, Has it been violated by the State of Utah or by the United States. Certainly not by the latter; and I affirm, with absolute confidence that the affirmation cannot be successfully contradicted, that the compact has not been violated by the State, or the people of Utah. On the contrary, I hold that the compact, such as it was, has been absolutely fulfilled. In this opinion I am sustained by the views of a very distinguished member of the House of Representatives, who discussed the subject somewhat at length on the floor of the House when the Roberts case was considered by that body. It was urged in the report of the special committee which investigated the right of the Representative from Utah to his seat in the House, that "his election as a Representative is an explicit and offensive violation of the 'understanding' by which Utah was admitted as a state."

      This "understanding" and the "compact" were discussed on the floor of the House by Representative Littlefield (of Maine) in the following language:

      "I would like to enquire of the majority where they find the authority for the proposition that the United States government can go into the question of an 'understanding' that existed before a State was admitted into this Union, and then, having found it, exercise this domiciliary, supervisory, disciplinary power over the State. Where does it exist? What is it indicated by? Is it oral? They do not undertake to suggest it is in the Enabling act, although they refer to it. But is it an oral 'understanding' that exists between the States and the general government by reason of this 'general welfare' power? I assume that they invoke it under this 'general welfare' proposition. Think of it! an 'understanding' which is based on—what? A compact or a contract? I had supposed it was too late at this stage of the history of the republic, in these times of peace, to invoke the proposition of a contract existing between the States and the general government. I knew that the theory of a contract was the parent of the infamous heresy, and I have believed that it was wiped out in blood from 1861 to 1865. More than five hundred thousand of the best, truest, most heroic and bravest men that ever met on the field of battle—the blue and the grey, brethren all—rendered up their lives that that infamous proposition should be blotted out, and blotted out forever. Let the dead past bury its dead. I submit that under these circumstances it ill becomes this House to undertake, in the interest if you please of civilization, to invoke anew the proposition of a contract existing between a State and the United States."

      Discussing the question of "compact" further, Mr. Littlefield said:

      "Compact is synonymous with contract. The idea of a compact or contract is not predicable upon the relations that exist between the State and the general government. They do not stand in the position of contracting parties. The condition upon which Utah was to become a State was fully performed when she became a State. The Enabling act authorized the President to determine when the condition was performed. He discharged that duty, found that the condition was complied with, and that condition no longer exists.

      "What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any writer to stand upon."

      With Mr. Littlefield, then, I say, that so far from the compact between Utah and the СКАЧАТЬ