It is the offspring of licentiousness, and its advocates merely wish to give legal color to licentious habits. Every student of history will find that as soon as a nation became morally depraved, polygamy was practiced, and that monogamy was the rule in all countries truly civilized.

Polygamy has, of late years, been most shamefully revived and outrageously practiced in face of law by the Mormons. They claim it as a religious duty, and defend the system by claiming that unmarried women can in the future life reach only the position of angels who occupy in the Mormon theocratic system a very subordinate rank, being simply ministering servants to those more worthy, thus proclaiming that it is a virtual necessity of the male to practice the vilest immorality in order to advance the female to the highest place in heaven.

Mormonism is a religion founded by Joseph Smith, who was born in Sharon, E. V., Dec. 23rd, 1805, and killed at Carthage, Ill., June 27th, 1844.

It is a most singular fact that a sect like the Mormons could have been established in a country peopled with such law-abiding people as of the United States, and maintain a system of marriage, antagonistic to the law and religion of the land. Neither could they have done so if they had not possessed two great virtues, temperance and industry. It is to be hoped that the legal process now instituted for its abolition will effectually remove the blot from the national escutcheon.

The “Oneida Communists” are essentially polygamic, although they have no marriage system. They do not marry, and ignore all marriage codes. Cohabitation is under no restrictions between the sexes. Marriage is also not observed among the “Shakers.”

MONOGAMY—WHAT IT IS.

This is the conjugal union of a male with one female only. We have seen that monogamy was coequal with civilization, and that most probably the majority of the males had but one wife, even among polygamic nations. Universal polygamy is practically impossible, the scarcity of females and the poverty of the males forbidding it. The excess of females is not so great in any country as to allow to each male more than one wife, except the male portion is depleted by long and disastrous wars. Monogamy has done more for the elevation of the female than any other custom of civilization. The rich could only afford to practice polygamy, and should the poor imitate the example it would necessarily subject the wives to a state of serfdom. In the economy of nature it is designed that the male should be the protector of the female, and that by his exertions the provision of food and raiment should be secured. In polygamous nations the female has not attained that social state that she has reached in countries where the male is entitled to but one female as his wife. Woman's highest sphere is not in the harem or zenana, but in that dignified state in which she is the sole connubial companion of but one man. It is debasing to her nature, and subversive of her dignity in the rank of humanity, to make her the equal only with others in the marital union with one male. She becomes only the true, noble and affectionate being when she is conscious of a superiority to others in the connubial companionship with her accepted one. The female bird chirps but for her single mate, and she is pugnaciously monogamic, as well as virtuous, allowing neither male or female at or near her home. The spirit of independence she gains by being the mate of but one male gains for her the victory over the intruders.

The physical and mental welfare of the female is also dependent upon monogamic marriage. We have demonstrated that temperate indulgence is conducive to the sanitary condition of the sexes, and that absolute abstinence is opposed to the designs of nature. It is also evident that the male is not endowed with greater power, vigor or capacity than the female; therefore, confinement or limitation of the congress to the companionship of one male with one female, as in monogamic marriage, gives the healthy balance to the marital union. The polygamic husband must either suffer from the consequences of excessive indulgence or his wives from poverty of sexual gratification; probably both would be the case.

POLYANDRY

is equally as proper as polygamy, yet it never in the history of man obtained a foothold. The system is more logical than polygamy, because the wife's dependence would be distributed between two or more husbands, in which case she would be better insured against poverty and her support would be guaranteed by greater probability.