* - . ' . . . * f V. , * Lt L : : * tMm mM & - . . * s > T''w _ . . ' " > / - vJLllL'jkli
Conservative.
' Emotional iguor-
POIA'GAMY.
ance seems con
stantly in need of something sensational
to stimulate its insatiable palate. Ecclesiasticism -
clesiasticism and politics generally
supply the stimulant for this morbid
appetite. At present , as is frequently
the case , ecclesiasticism and politics
have formed a combine or trust. Anti-
monnouisin is the ecclesiastics-political
fad. Strange bedfellows ! Corruption
is the bed most to their liking. The
father of lies often occupies it with
them. An unholy trinity 1 The result
of this union is an abortive misconcep
tion. Robertsisni , or anti-mormonism ,
is a form of religio-political persecu
tion. It is the old , old story , persecu
tion for opinion's sake. It is in accord
with our greatest danger. The political
fad of today is really not anti-polygamy ,
not auti-imperalism. It is anti consti
tutionalism. It is anarchy. The seeds
of revolution are being strewn broad
cast by misnamed statesmen and so
called reformers. They find fruitful
soil in a people gone mad with emotional
ignorance in the shape of pseudo -religion
and false patriotism. Robertsisni and
Deweyism are forms of emotional in
sanity in opposite , not opposing , direc
tions. The devil of ignorance has found
means to unite the forces. This anti-
polygamy crusade is ecclesiastical , not
religious. It is political , not constitu
tional. Ecclesiastics generally know a
little of true religion as politicians do of
statesmanship.
Aiiti-MornioiiiHiu Not Christian.
It is not Christian if "the essence of
Christianity is brotherly love. " There
is nothing of "the sweet spirit of love"
in it. On a somewhat similar occasion
one Jesus asked his fellows : "Which
among you will cast the first stone ? "
Can Christian monogamy , with its
notorious promiscuity in its sexual
indulgences , cast the first stone at Mor
mon polygamy ? Polygyny or pro
miscuity , is far more plentiful in Chris
tian United States than in Mormon
Utah. There are monogamous fathers
in New York , Washington , Boston ,
and Chicago whose promiscuity has
extended over hundreds of women dur
ing their married life. There are
national fathers in Washington and
elders in the Christian church whose
polygynian lives would put to shameful
insignificance the polygamy of the most
polygamous Mormon elder. There are
far more immoral Brighams parading
under the colors and protection of
Christianity than Brigham Young or
Brigham Roberts. There are congress
men who indulge in promiscuous
polygyny at the expense of the people ,
their mistresses being in the employ of
the government and owing their posi
tions to the favor of their concessional
. protectors. Why then cast these stones
at Mormon polygamy while our monag-
amous skirts are so polluted with
promiscuous polygyny ?
Polygamy IIH Natural as Monogamy.
TIIK CONSERVATIVE is not interested
in entering upon a crusade in favor of
polygamy. It is interested in calling to
mind a few seemingly unrecognized
facts. Polygamy is not of the devil nor
is there necessarily any thing satanic in
it. Monogamy is not of Heaven nor is
it infallibly Heavenly in its results , even
though it has a self-claimed infallible
church to uphold and bless it. Both are
natural , even as all things are the result
of natural necessity. Polygamy and
monogamy are social institutions , the
result of economical necessity. Were
the statistics of the human world
accurately at command polygamy would
be found to largely predominate over
monogamy. If there is anything sacred
in the modern fad for antiques , poly
gamy has the advantage of age and
numbers over monogamy. If the exact
facts were known we should probably
be horrified at finding that the primitive
natural condition of promiscuous poly
gyny far outnumbered both polygamy
and monogamy.
Promiscuous Polygyny the Primitive
Condition.
Whoever knows himself knows that
polygyny is the natural condition of
man as well as the majority of male
mammals. The sexual irritability of the
male is practically insatiable during the
years of virility. Medically speaking it
is one of the tests of virility ; the
primary one , especially to the mind of
the patient. Monogamous promiscuity
or polygyny finds its origin in male
insatiability and the economical ability
to gratify it , as well as the necessities of
unfortunate women in the struggle for
existence. Polygamy developed out of
promiscuous polygyny , as did monog
amy out of polygamy , is a result of
economical necessity.
Marriage a Social Institution.
Marriage is not a religious institution ,
though ecclesiasticism has sought to
make it so , that the ecclesiastics might
benefit by the fees and the church hold
the people in its chains by terrorizing
their superstitious ignorance. Marriage
is a strictly social institution. The
social purpose in marriage was and is to
fix male responsibility for the results of
its sexual gratifications the children.
The primary purpose was to lessen the
number of children produced , which
could only be done by making the male
responsible for the results of his sexual
indulgences. The only way to reach
monogamous promiscuity effectively is
to give all children the same paternal
rights to support and inheritance ,
whether born in wedlock or not.
Marriage is the recognized or legalized
union of a man with one or more women
under conditions which make the man
responsible for the support of his wife ,
or wives , and for their children. Poly
gamy is as much a form of marriage as
monogamy. Monogamy is a more moral
or better form of marriage only as it
roaches the desired ends better. A few
years since a newspaper , journal and
pulpit fad was :
" ! B Marriage a Failure ? "
The only correct answer was never
given. As the occasion to the institution
of marriage was to lessen the compe
tition or severities of the struggle for
existence , so the only test of marriage is
today , as then : does it increase or lessen
the individual severities of the struggle
for existence ? The question of the
actual status of married women outside
this one question is of very litfc'e im
portance. The only actual test of mar
riage is , are the children born under one
form , say polygamy , better fitted for the
struggle for existence than those born
under another form , say monogamy ? A
critical study of this question might
prove interesting and instructive.
Under an exact revision of the question
of marriage it must be said that every
marriage is a failure where there are
children born mentally or physically un
fitted , or made so by parental indulgence
or neglect , to maintain themselves
according to the standard of survival in
the environment they are born into.
Childless marriages have the same
standards. If they lead to a self-main
taining survival of the parties united
they are a success ; if they do not they
are failures.
Love might be defined as the ability
of a man and woman to live together to
mutual strengthening in the struggle
for existence , so far as marriage is con
cerned. This definition will not prob
ably suit the emotionally insane.
Marriage the Natural Result of Pro
miscuity.
Promiscuity was the natural sexual
relation in the most primitive social
conditions. In the blood-relationship
commune there were mothers , but no
fathers. The children belonged to the
commune. Polygamy was the primitive
attempt to restrict procreation. So long
as man was socially nothing but
a nomadic family , clan or com
mune , with no fixity of abode
and in constant struggle with other
similar communes , the struggle for
existence , the roaming life , and all its
vicissitudes , gave a more than sufficient
equalization to the dangers of over
population. Individual survival was
dependent on clan solidarity , as clan
solidarity was dependent on individual
multiplication. There was little or no
opportunity for over-population
or sur
vival of unfits under such severe condi
tions. But , when some clans became
stronger than others , and greater terri
tory became necessary and the weaker
clans were driven out or subjected , it
dawned on men that continual roaming
