While I was in court a few days ago, and gazing upon the assembly of judges, lawyers, marshals, witnesses, spectators, etc., many reflections of a very peculiar character passed through my mind, some of which I will here rehearse.

I could not help thinking as I looked upon the scene, that there was no necessity for all this; these parties need not have placed themselves in this peculiar dilemma. Here was a young man blessed with more than ordinary intelligence, bearing, amongst all who know him a most enviable reputation for virtue, honesty, sobriety, and all other desirable characteristics that we are in the habit of supposing go to make a man respected and beloved, the civilized world over. He had been trained from early childhood in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, had been an attendant at Sabbath schools and Young Men's Improvement Societies, where his course was of the most pleasing kind; more than this, some years ago, when quite a youth, he had shown his devotion to the faith in which he had been reared, by going forth without purse and scrip, to preach in the midst of the unbelieving the doctrines of a most unpopular faith. And, as I reach this point in my reflections, my mind instinctively wanders to a monument I gazed at in the Salt Lake City cemetery but a few days ago. That monument records in fitting words of respect and admiration the devotion of two young missionaries in a far-off Southern State, one of whom had fallen a victim to mob violence, had sealed with his blood the testimony which he bore, the other had stood by him in this hour of sore need, and rescued his mangled body and brought it safely for thousands of miles to the home of his bereaved parents and sorrowing co-religionists. This heroic young man is the one now arraigned before the courts of his country, for an alleged offence against the morality of the age. Assuming that the reports pertaining to him should prove to be correct, and he really has a plural wife, what then would be the position? He, from his earliest recollection, had been taught to reverence the Bible as the word of God, to revere the lives and examples of the ancient, worthies whom Jehovah honored by making them his confidants, and revealing unto them the secrets of His divine purposes; he had read of one who was called "the friend of God, and the father of the faithful," of another who was said to be a man after God's own heart;" of a third who in all things is said to have done the will of Heaven, and so on till they could be numbered by the score; yet all these men, the friends, associates and confidants of the great Creator of heaven and earth, were men with more than one wife, some with many wives, yet they still possessed and rejoiced in the low and honor of the great Judge of all the world, whose judgments are all [p.357] just, and whose words are all righteousness. This young man is charged with following these worthy examples; it is asserted that he has taken to wife a beautiful and virtuous young lady, belonging, like him, to one of our most respected families, and who also believes in the Bible, and the example set her by those holy women of old, such as Rachel, Ruth, Hannah, and others, who honored God's law, and became the mothers of Prophets, Priests and Kings. And as my cogitations ran I thought what need had these two to follow such examples of a bye-gone age; why not walk in the way of the world to-day; unite with our modern Christian civilization, and if passion guided their actions, why call each other husband and wife, why hallow their associations by any sacred ceremony; was there any need of such? Why not do as tens of thousands of others do, live in the condition of illicit love? And then if any child should be feared from this unsanctified union, why not still follow our Christian exemplars, remove the foetal incumbrance, call in some of the copyists of Madame Restell, the abortionists, male and female, that pollute our land, that would have been sub-rosa, genteel, fashionable, respectable, Christian-like, as Christianity goes in this generation. And if this did not succeed, the young man might have turned his victim into the street to perish, or die of pollution as is done in tens of thousands of instances, in the most sanctified manner by the hypocrites of the day. Then, in either of these cases, the young gentleman could have been received into good society, be petted and applauded; could hold a position under our government, be even a deputy-marshal, registrar or what not, and still further, be able to answer all the necessary questions; and be admitted as a grand juror without being brought in as a gutter-snipe on an open venire, but as a respectable citizen on the regular panel. Or again, these two, in the event of a child being born, might consign it to the care of some degraded hag, some baby farmer, where gradually and quietly its innocent life would ebb out, and bye and bye the grief-stricken parents would receive the anticipated notice that their dear little offspring, notwithstanding every care, was dead and buried. This is a respectable crime, a crime committed principally by those who go to high-toned churches and fashionable meeting-houses in velvets and feathers, in silks and satins, and who with upturned eyes and hypocritical voices, insult the majesty of Heaven by drawling out, "Lord have mercy upon us, miserable sinners." Yet they are murderers—murderers of the worst kind, shedders of innocent blood, consumers of their own flesh, whom the vengeance of God awaits. Yet this young man and woman could have done all this and no marshals with ready feet would have dogged their steps, no packed grand juries with unanimous alacrity would do the bidding of over-zealous prosecuting attorneys; no Federal judge would overturn precedent, ignore law, disregard justice on purpose to convict. No, they might then have been the friends, associates, companions of judge and prosecutor, governor and commissioner: but now, as they would neither associate unrighteously, nor take means to destroy the results of their union, but honestly and virtuously live, as is claimed, as husband and wife, he stands in the felon's dock charged with an offence against the dignity of the United States, and to convict him, oppressive laws, more oppressively administered, are brought to bear with all the ingenuity that malice can devise and hatred adopt. And there, in this ignominious position, he stands, with every person who might possibly be his friend, excluded from the jury, without the possibility of a fair trial by his peers, not one of the panel being in the least sympathy with himself: and by such people this unfortunate young gentleman has to be tried, judged, prosecuted, proscribed, and condemned, because of his firm and unswerving faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of David, Solomon, and numerous other God-fearing and honorable men, who, like Him, have despised the cant and hypocrisy of an ungodly world, and dared to obey the behests of Jehovah. Of these things he had learned from the Bible, in the Sunday school; no wonder then that our would be reformers are so anxious to exclude the Bible from our district schools, as its teachings and examples so emphatically condemn the theories on which the acts and legislation of Congress are based, as well as the course pursued by those who seek to aid in the regeneration of Utah by adding to or taking from the law as is best suited to shield their own corrupt practices, or, on the other hand, by extra judicial proceedings, under cover of the law, they pervert, to prosecute and persecute the Mormons.

And where was this scene enacted? In the gorgeous palaces of Belshazzar, surrounded by his wives, concubines, and nobles, and where was seen written on the walls, "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin?" No. Was it at the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, when ten righteous persons could not be found to avert the wrath of an offended God, or in Pompeii or Herculaneum, who, in their turn, for their libidinous and unrighteous practices, as Sodom and Gomorrah, suffered the vengeance of eternal fire? No. Was it in the Saturnalia of the Bacchanals of ancient Greece and Rome? No. Those nations have been long overthrown, and are now only known to a few readers of ancient history. Was it during the reign of the first; French republic, when they elevated a prostitute as the goddess of reason? No. Was it in the days of the inquisition, when the rack, the gibbet, the faggot and the flames were brought into requisition to force unwilling victims to testify of things which their consciences forbade, and who perished by thousands for daring to think and act, and believe in and worship God according to the dictates of their consciences? No. Was it under the influence of Bacchus, or in the midnight revellings as exhibited in Rome under Nero. No. This scene was enacted in mid-day, in the 19th century, in the year of our Lord, 1884, in the Federal Court House, in Salt Lake City, at a court presided over by Judge Zane, Chief Justice for the United States in the Territory of Utah, assisted by Prosecuting Attorney Dickson, and the other adjuncts of the law, and in the presence of several hundred American citizens. Towards these gentlemen personally I have no feelings, no complaints to make. I understand them to bear the reputation of being learned and honorable men in all other matters. But they stand in an unfortunate position; they represent a cause so low, that it is impossible to look upon it without loathing and commiseration; they represent a political exigency, a party necessity, capital has to be made by the persecution and prosecution of American citizens who have embraced an unpopular faith, and they are the tools with which the unclean, despicable and barbarous work has to be done. I envy not their calling. I have no desire to stand in their shoes. Let my work be to do the will of God, to build up truth, virtue, righteousness, honor and peace upon the earth, and they may, if they so prefer, continue in the unfortunate work that their party has assigned to them.