THE CIVIL BASIS OF AN ANTI-POLYGAMY LAW.
By J. A. L. Derby
IN the outcry against Senator Smoot from Utah, and against the Mormon religion, which he represents, we have seen a good deal of bigotry and prejudice, but very little appeal to underlying principles or calm, convincing argument. Now two things are certain: first, if prejudice is the best argument against a man taking two wives, then the polygamist is right, and his critic wrong. We are bound to sympathize with the Mormon, aye, and protect him in his right to a multiplicity of wives; secondly, no civil law can be based on a religious principle; hence, if there is no civil basis of a law against polygamy, no such law ought to disgrace the statute books of a nation or state. Come now, let us be honest and stick to principle. It matters not how good a Biblical reason can be urged to show the immorality and unchristian character of plural-wife doctrine; no moral or religious foundation can ever be advanced for a civil law. Scriptural evidence there is a plenty against this dire plague of Utah, this threat to civilization. But to admit the Bible as grounds for one civil law, means not only the return of the rack and faggot as legitimate means of dealing with heretics, but it is expressly contrary to the teachings of Holy Writ; for no less an authority than Jesus Christ Himself is on record as laying down the rule: "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The purpose of this article is not to deal with the religious aspect of this question. What we wish here to inquire is, Is there a civil basis for a law against polygamy? We are not aware how many people could give or have stated this basis, but there is a very obvious one. The only wonder is that on such an occasion as the present the opposers of Senator Smoot and his doctrine do not conduct their campaign on the evidently-reasonable footing afforded by this principle, and to be expected from those who demand a civil law. Passion is poor logic. Let us briefly examine the civil basis of the law demanded. Nothing is more certain than that the chief aim of civil government is protection of rights, especially natural rights. Whatever else has in practise been included, the principle just stated is the basilar one. This being so, and once clearly stated, the polygamy problem becomes clear. The assumption by man of a natural right not granted to woman is a violation of the rights of woman. We are not now talking about such rights as that to vote, but merely of those rights which naturally belong to male and female alike. Certainly none of these is more obvious than the right to marry or not to marry. But now imagine the masculine portion of creation—or of the ascended or descended anthropoid apes, if such one prefers as his ancestry—saying to the feminine part, "I have a right to take two or a dozen of you to wife if I please; but you have a natural right to only one man." The simple inquiry is, Where did my lord get this right which he is not willing to grant to my lady? If the master has a natural right to a dozen ladies, by the same token, the maid has a right to marry him and as many other persons as she wishes. Nature gives no evidence of a difference in this respect. There is just as much natural law for polyandry as for polygamy; but to give free rein to both is practically not different from free love; and civilized nations and uncivilized ones are pretty unanimous that free love would prove the utter destruction of society. J. A. L. DERBY.