Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob." Young's dictatorship in the choice of wives was equally absolute. "No man in Utah," said the Seer (Vol. I, p. 31), "who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any proposition of marriage to a lady until he has consulted the President of the whole church, and through him obtained a revelation from God as to whether it would be pleasing in His sight."

The authority of the priesthood was always exerted to compel at least every prominent member of the church to take more wives than one. "For a man to be confined to one woman is a small business," said Kimball in the Tabernacle, on April 4, 1857. This influence coerced Stenhouse to take as his second wife a fourteenyear-old daughter of Parley P. Pratt, although he loved his legal wife, and she had told him that she would not live with him if he married again, and although his intimate friend, Superintendent Cooke, of the Overland Stage Company, to save him, threatened to prosecute him under the law against bigamy if he yielded.1 Another illustration, given by Mrs. Waite, may be cited. Kimball, calling on a Prussian immigrant named Taussig one day, asked him how he was doing and how many wives he had, and on being told that he had two, replied, "That is not enough. You must take a couple more. I'll send them to you." The narrative continues:

"On the following evening, when the brother returned home, he found two women sitting there. His first wife said, 'Brother Taussig' (all the women call their husbands brother), 'these are the Sisters Pratt.' They were two widows of Parley P. Pratt. One of the ladies, Sarah, then said, 'Brother Taussig, Brother Kimball told us to call on you, and you know what for.' 'Yes, ladies,' replied Brother Taussig, 'but it is a very hard task for me to marry two.' The other remarked, 'Brother Kimball told us you were doing a very good business and could support more women.' Sarah then took up the conversation, 'Well, Brother Taussig, I want to get married anyhow.' The good brother replied, 'Well, ladies, I will see what I can do and let you know.'"2

Brother Taussig compromised the matter with the Bishop of his ward by marrying Sarah, but she did not like her new home,

1 When Mr. and Mrs. Stenhouse left the church at the time of the "New Movement," their daughter, who was a polygamous wife of Brigham Young's son, decided with the church and refused even to speak with her parents.

2 "The Mormon Prophet," p. 258.

and he was allowed to divorce her on payment of $10 to Brigham Young!

[ocr errors]

Each polygamous family was, of course, governed in accordance with the character of its head: a kind man would treat all his wives kindly, however decided a preference he might show for one; and under a brute all would be unhappy. Young, in his earlier days at Salt Lake City, used to assemble all his family for prayers, and have a kind word for each of the women, and all ate at a common table after his permanent residences were built. Brigham's wives," says Hyde, "although poorly clothed and hard worked, are still very infatuated with their system, very devout in their religion, very devoted to their children. They content themselves with his kindness as they cannot obtain his love.” 1 He kept no servants, the wives performing all the household work, and one of them acting as teacher to her own and the others' children. As the excuse for marriage with the Mormons is childbearing,2 the older wives were practically discarded, taking the place of examples of piety and of spiritual advisers.

A summing up of the many-sided evils of polygamy was thus presented by President Cleveland in his first annual message:

"The strength, the perpetuity, and the destiny of the nation rests upon our homes, established by the law of God, guarded by parental care, regulated by parental authority, and sanctified by parental love. These are not the homes of polygamy.

"The mothers of our land, who rule the nation as they mould the characters and guide the actions of their sons, live according to God's holy ordinances, and each, secure and happy in the exclusive love of the father of her children, sheds the warm light of true womanhood, unperverted and unpolluted, upon all within

1 "Mormonism," p. 164.

2 How far this doctrine was not observed may be noted in the following remarks of H. C. Kimball in the Tabernacle, on February 1, 1857: "They [his wives] have got to live their religion, serve their God, and do right as well as myself. Suppose that I lose

the whole of them before I go into the spiritual world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life, and lived my religion, and had favor with God, and was kind to them, do you think I will be destitute there? No. The Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than they do here, because there is no obstruction. They do not call upon the doctors to kill their offspring. In this world very many of the doctors are studying to diminish the human race. In the spiritual world . . . we will go to Brother Joseph . . . and he will say to us, 'Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?' 'They are back yonder; they would not follow us.' 'Never mind,' says Joseph, 'here are thousands; have all you want.'” — Journal of Dis courses, Vol. IV, p. 209.

her pure and wholesome family circle. These are not the cheerless, crushed, and unwomanly mothers of polygamy.

"The fathers of our families are the best citizens of the Republic. Wife and children are the sources of patriotism, and conjugal and parental affection beget devotion to the country. The man who, undefiled with plural marriage, is surrounded in his single home with his wife and children, has a status in the country which inspires him with respect for its laws and courage for its defence. These are not the fathers of polygamous families."

CHAPTER XXIV

THE FIGHT AGAINST POLYGAMY-STATEHOOD

THE first measure "to punish and prevent the practice of polyg amy in the Territories of the United States" was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Morrill of Vermont (Bill No. 7) at the first session of the 36th Congress, on February 15, 1860. It contained clauses annulling some of the acts of the territorial legislature of Utah, including the one incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 14, the committee declaring that “no argument was deemed necessary to prove that an act could be regarded as criminal which is so treated by the universal concurrence of the Christian and civilized world,” and characterizing the church incorporation act as granting "such monstrous powers and arrogant assumptions as are at war with the genius of our government." The bill passed the House on April 5, by a vote of 149 to 60, was favorably reported to the Senate by Mr. Bayard from the Judiciary Committee on June 13, but did not pass that House.

Mr. Morrill introduced his bill by unanimous consent in the next Congress (on April 8, 1862), and it was passed by the House on April 28. Mr. Bayard, from the Judiciary Committee, reported it back to the Senate on June 3 with amendments. He explained that the House Bill punished not only polygamous marriages, but cohabitation without marriage. The committee recommended limiting the punishment to bigamy - a fine not to exceed $500 and imprisonment for not more than five years. Another amendment limited the amount of real estate which a church corporation could hold in the territories to $50,000. The bill passed the Senate with the negative votes of only the two California senators, and the House accepted the amendments. Lincoln signed it.

In

Nothing practical was accomplished by this legislation. 1867 George A. Smith and John Taylor, the presiding officers of the Utah legislature, petitioned Congress to repeal this act, setting forth as one reason that "the judiciary of this territory has not, up to the present time, tried any case under said law, though repeatedly urged to do so by those who have been anxious to test its constitutionality." The House Judiciary Committee reported that this was a practical request for the sanctioning of polygamy, and said: "Your committee has not been able to ascertain the reason why this law has not been enforced. The humiliating fact is, however, apparent that the law is at present practically a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, and that the gravest necessity exists for its enforcement; and, in the opinion of the committee, if it be through the fault or neglect of the judiciary of that territory that the laws are not enforced, the judges should be removed without delay; and that, if the failure to execute the law arises from other causes, it becomes the duty of the President of the United States to see that the law is faithfully executed." 1

In June, 1866, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill enacting radical legislation concerning such marriages as were performed and sanctioned by the Mormon church, but it did not pass. Senator Cragin of New Hampshire soon introduced a similar bill, but it, too, failed to become a law.

In 1869, in the first Congress that met under President Grant, Mr. Cullom of Illinois introduced in the House the bill aimed at polygamy that was designated by his name. This bill was the practical starting-point of the anti-polygamous legislation subsequently enacted, as over it was aroused the feeling-in its behalf in the East and against it in Utah-that resulted in practical legislation.

Delegate Hooper made the leading speech against it, summing up his objections as follows:

66

"(1) 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 conceding the cognizance of the marriage relation as within

1 House Report No. 27, 2d Session, 39th Congress.

« ÖncekiDevam »