SENATOR BROWN, GEORGIA.
The bill proposes to apply a religious test to the Mormons, in so far as it punishes the Mormon for his opinions, it is a religious test applied. He believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet as much as I believe that Jeremiah was a prophet; and while I think he is in an egregious error, I have no right to proscribe him because of his belief as long as he does not practice immorality. And I have no right to do more as a legislator than to prescribe rules to punish him for his immoralities, and leave him to the full enjoyment of his religious opinions, just as I claim the right to enjoy my own opinions. If we commence striking down any sect, however despised or however unpopular, on account of opinion's sake, we do not know how soon the fires of Smithfield may be rekindled or the gallows of New England for witches again be erected, or when another Catholic convent will be burned down.
We do not know how long it will be before the clamor would be raised by the religious institutions of this country, that no member of a church who holds the infallibility of the Pope or the doctrine of transubstantiation should hold office or vote in this country. We do not know how long it would be before it would be said that no member of a church who believed in close communion and baptism by immersion as the only mode, should vote or hold office in this country. You are treading on dangerous ground when you open this floodgate anew. We have passed the period where there is for the present any clamor on this subject, except as against the Mormons; but it seems there must be some periodical outcry against some denomination. Popular vengeance is now turned against the Mormons. When we are done with them, I know not who will next be considered the proper subject of it.
To accomplish this great object the Territorial practices of half a century are to be blotted out, local self-government is to be destroyed, the church is to be plundered, and the prosperous region of Utah is to be subjected to the rule of satraps whose unlimited power will enable them to rob and pillage the people at pleasure. If this system is once inaugurated, bitter as was our experience in the South during the late reconstruction period when our affairs were being regulated, it was mildness itself compared with what is in store for Utah as long as the wealth accumulated by the Mormons is not exhausted.
Mr. President, I shall be a party to no such proceedings. Other sections of the Union have frequently run wild in keeping up with New England ideas and New England practices on issues of this character. I presume they will do so again, but I, for one, shall not be a party to the enactment or enforcement of unconstitutional, tyrannical, and oppressive legislation for the purpose of crushing the Mormons or any other sect for the gratification of New England or any other section. The precedents which we are making, when the persons and parties in the States who feel it their duty to regulate the affairs of others find themselves unemployed and the regulation of Mormonism no longer profitable, will be used against other sects. Whether the Baptists, or the Catholics, or the Quakers will be selected for the next victim does not yet appear. But he who supposes that this spirit of restless and illegal intermeddling with the affairs of other sections will be satiated or appeased by the sacrifice of the Mormons has read modern history to little advantage.
The Mormon sect is marked for the first victim. The Constitution and the practices of the Government are to be disregarded and if need be trampled down to gratify the ire of dominant intermeddling.
And such is the fanaticism now prevalent in reference to the Mormon sect, that when it is clearly shown the regulation which they desire can not take place within the Constitution and laws, the restless regulators will doubtless be ready to follow the example of Mr. Stevens and regulate Mormonism outside of the Constitution. But why should Southern men become camp-followers in this crusade?
The Mormons may, however, be consoled by the reflection that their privileges need not be curtailed if they are obedient, nor the present practice diminished, but they must change the name and no longer conduct the wicked practice in what they call the "marriage relation."
The Government considers this no great hardship, as it freely permits in the Mormons, if called by the right name, what it does not punish in other people. For, without violating the policy of the Government in so far as it has been proclaimed by its Utah Commission, if the Mormons will conform to its requirements as to the mode, the practice of prostitution in Utah need not in the slightest degree be diminished. The clamor is not against the Mormon for having more than one woman, but for calling more than one his wife. And the Mormons will do well to remember that the policy of putting the whole population, men, women, and children to the sword, and filling the whole land with wailing, blood, and carnage will not be wanting in advocates if a portion of them still continue, each to cohabit with more than one woman in what they call "the marriage relation."
The Government and people of the United States have deliberately determined that they must call it by the proper name. Let the Mormon who has a plurality of women remember that he must conform to the practice elsewhere and call but one of them his wife.
This, Mr. President, is the point we have reached. This is the distinction we have drawn. This is our present policy and practice as applied to the Territory of Utah. What consummate statesmanship!
Others who feel it their duty upon such hollow pretexts to destroy a prosperous Territory by such unconstitutional and illegal means as are proposed will doubtless proceed with this unnatural warfare until they have seen the result of their folly.
Let those whose ambition prompts them to such deeds of daring take part in this tyrannical and illegal conquest over a helpless people, who, to gratify an insatiate fanaticism, are to be crushed without the morals of this country being in the slightest degree improved or illegal sexual intercourse in the least degree diminished, and let them enjoy the fruits of their triumph.
But as I have sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, and can not therefore belong to the army of the conquerors, I shall have no right to claim any of the trophies of the victory. Nor when the slaughter comes shall I have upon my hands the stain of the blood of any of the victims. Nor shall I share in the responsibility when in future our present unconstitutional and unjustifiable legislation against the Mormons shall be used as a precedent for like legislation to crush some other sect or denomination, who may have chance, as the Mormons now do, to fall under the ban of popular fanaticism and indignation which will afford another pretext for New England interference and regulation.
There are over fifty millions of people in the United States; and there are probably twenty times as many persons practicing prostitution, or illegal sexual intercourse, in the other parts of the Union as the whole number who practice it in Utah. Many of the features of its practice in the other States and Territories, including foeticide, illegal divorce, etc., are quite as revolting, or more so, than in Utah. It is assumed in the other parts of the Union, where a greatly larger number of persons practice sexual impurity than the whole number of Mormon polygamists, that polygamy must be put down at any cost. It is certainly a matter of great importance that polygamy, prostitution, foeticide and illegal divorce, whether practiced in Utah or in any other part of the United States, should be put down. And if we have it in our power by constitutional means to accomplish that end no one would be more rejoiced than I. But having taken a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States, I cannot as a Senator vote for a measure which I am satisfied is a plain violation of the Constitution to crush out polygamy, or to accomplish any other object. And we would do well to bear in mind that if the Congress of the United States disregards and violates the Constitution of the United States in its eager haste to crush a sect but little over one hundred thousand strong, the result of the precedent may be the crushing out of one sect after another, until it ends in the complete overthrow of the liberties of fifty millions of people, who are expected to applaud our efforts to crush the Mormons without regard to constitutional difficulties or constitutional obligations.
No matter what the popular applause may be on the one hand or the popular condemnation on the other, I will join in no hue and cry against any sect that requires me to vote for measures in open violation of the fundamental law of the land. And we would do well to bear in mind that an illegal persecution of any sect always excites sympathy for the persecuted and greatly increases its number. The late Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, when asked what would be the effect of the Edmunds bill on Mormonism, replied, "The effect will be to make more Mormons."
But I may be asked, "What means can we adopt to destroy this great evil in Utah?" I reply we can not do it by passing unconstitutional laws, or adopting illegal or unconstitutional means, or by striking down republican government in the Territory.
The Christian churches of this country spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year sending missionaries to foreign lands where polygamy is practiced. In India and in China alone more than 500,000,000 of people practice or acquiesce in the practice of polygamy. And yet the Christian churches are not discouraged, but they send missionaries there, hoping finally to convert the whole mass of the people. Why, then, should we not send missionaries to Utah, where only about 12,000 people practice and a little over 100,000 people believe in polygamy? If the Christian churches are willing to make the effort to convert 500,000,000 of polygamists in the East, why should they not with less effort convert 100,000 within the limits of our own land? If the first task is within the range of possibility, what is there to discourage us from the smaller undertaking? There are a great many people in Utah who might be converted by the proper effort. They are our neighbors, our fellow-citizens. Shall we give them up as reprobates, and make no effort to save them, and join in a crusade to crush them? They speak our language, they are within easy reach. Why give them up and turn to the heathen of other lands, who neither understand our language nor have anything of race or sympathy in common with us? Have the Christian churches done their duty to the Mormon people? If you can not convince their leaders you can convert thousands of the people. It may be easier to cry "Crucify them" than it is to try to help convert them. But can the churches reconcile it to conscience that duty is as well performed in the one case as in the other?