thinkers and their writings have comforted religiously, and strengthened mentally, certain minds which in those writings have found relishing spiritual aliment. To such ones the writings and their authors have been a savor from life unto life. But it is also grievously true, that to multitudes of other persons, everywhere, and through all time, they have been a savor from death unto death. Theologic differences and persecutions have wrought woes unnumbered unto innumerable myriads of honest men, women, and children. What terrible spectres of cruelty appear in one's mind at the mention of the Inquisition, or of Smithfield where martyrs were burned, or of Salem where witches were hung; or of odium theologicum (theological hatred), a hatred by theologians and ministers of one sect towards those of another, that surpasses all other rancor under heaven, possibly equalled by that of devils damned in hell. It is shocking to many lovers of peace, truth, justice, and freedom, that in the nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, prosecutions, imprisonments, and fines are to be inflicted, in the name of law and order, and under the supposed sanction of religion, upon thousands of good men and women acknowledged to be honest, upright, industrious citizens in all their ways of life and labor. Cannot this portentous mockery, sure to be regarded by posterity as the crowning disgrace of the existing religion and civilization of our country, be dispelled? Scrutinize the principles that are supposed to justify such severity. Compare them with the eternal standards of truth and justice. It is true that some of the religious practices of the Mormons do offend the opinions and prejudices of other social circles and religious sects. Polygamic marriage, which among the Mormons is a civil and religious institution, as circumcision is with the Jews, is distasteful to many good and worthy people in certain other parts of the United States. But it is said that it is more than distasteful; it is insisted that polygamy violates a law, a statute of the United States, and is therefore a "crime." Ministers, editors of religious papers, often make this charge, and have thereby inflamed the feel

ings of their audiences against the Mormons. This charge ought to be sifted.

Is every violation of a Congressional or State statute a crime, and is every such violator a criminal? Were the men who came forth unharmed from Nebuchadnezzar's burning fiery furnace, criminals, because they violated his decree? Was Daniel a criminal in not obeying an established statute of King Darius? It was charged against Socrates, that he corrupted the youth; against Jesus, that he blasphemed. The charges being proved to the satisfaction of their judges, both of these teachers and exemplars of morality and religion died the deaths of criminals. Was Roger Williams a criminal in maintaining, as he did, "that any thing short of unlimited toleration for all religious systems was detestable persecution"? For it he was banished: an act that disgraced Massachusetts, and honored Rhode Island, into whose territory he was welcomed. Were the founders of our Republic criminals, or patriots, in resisting and violating as they did certain laws of the English Parliament? Are the Mormons to be adjudged criminals if they do not obey Sect. 5,352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which statute makes every married person who marries another in a Territory or other place over which the United States have jurisdiction, guilty of bigamy and punishable by fine and imprisonment? All these questions can be clearly answered. A distinct conception of the nature of "human rights" and of human crimes answers the question, and solves the Mormon problem.

First, What is the nature of human rights? I conceive it to be a power, a capacity in human beings, of acquiring or receiving sensations, emotions, mental and spiritual influences. This power or capacity is born in human beings, not derived from church or state, is a part of their nature, and hence is natural. Exercised in their normal direction, these powers and capacities are rights, because they are in the lines, the right lines, or direction of nature. Hence the normal exercise of human powers or capacities, in acquiring or re

ceiving sensations, emotions, mental, spiritual, and perhaps other influences, constitute natural human rights. It is not right for any legislature to abridge them, except so far as it may be necessary to prevent their possessor from infringing on the corresponding equal rights of other persons. An act of a sovereign, or of a legislature to curtail natural human rights, except for that purpose, is itself a crime, and its promoters are criminals. Hence, Nebuchadnezzar, King Darius, the judges of Socrates and of Jesus, the colonial authorities of Massachusetts, and the English ministries, were criminals, not their victims.

An ancient moralist said1 that it was "philosophy which taught the rights of man, which are the basis of human society." Rev. Dr. Mark Hopkins inquires 2" whether rights are not among the most underlying general and powerful of our principles of action? What will a man fight for, sooner than for his rights? What but his rights ought he to fight for? Our conception of these comes in connection with every active principle.

66

Among the first, if not the very first, of our moral ideas is that of a right to ourselves; that is, of a right to use every power we have for its appropriate ends; and, when that right is interfered with, our nature is stirred to its lowest depths." Rev. Dr. Francis Wayland says,3 "By the consti-. tution under which the Creator has placed us, the rights of man are as truly rights, as the rights of God. The violation of the rights of man, is as truly a violation of right as the violation of the rights of God." Hence the special special-perhaps the exclusive - province of human legislation is to ascertain and to protect the natural rights of men, women, and children. To infringe upon, much more by legislation practically to make useless, those rights, except to protect the same rights of other persons from invasion, is a crime fraught with unnumbered and direful woes to the State that permits

1 Cicero's Tusculum Questions.

2 On Peace of Conscience. Boston Monday Lecture 1880-81, p. 103.

8 Limitations of Human Responsibility, p. 56.

or acquiesces in such legislation. A subsequent part of this letter will show that to establish human rights, to protect people in their possession of them, and in the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty, was the prime object constantly held in view by the framers of the Constitution of the United States.

Human crimes are violations, by one or more human beings, of the natural rights in person or property, of another, or other human beings. They are injuries, wrongs, hurts, harms, troubles, vexations, or annoyance, inflicted, yes, perpetrated (often with a supposed good purpose in view), by one or more individuals upon another person. It is important to notice that it is the violation by one party of another party's rights that constitute a "crime." The hurts and harms that a person inflicts on himself are not "crimes;" they may be accidents or vices, but are not "crimes." Intoxication is not a crime: it is a vice. It lacks the essential element which constitutes crime: that element is an intentional violation of another person's rights, without sufficient reason for such violation. To protect natural rights, to guard them from invasion, is the only rightful plea for controlling another person's rights of person, property, or liberty. Legislators can rightfully enact laws against crimes, but not against vices. Legislation against crimes, proceeds on the principle of self-protection, which is a law of nature; for it is instinctive for a person to attempt to defend himself against injury. Kindness, arguments, and persuasions, not punitive methods, are the only ones that can be rightfully used to reform vicious persons. Their rights of protection against injustice and violence, are just as sacred to them, as are the rights of virtuous men against injustice and violence to them. An invasion of one's right of self-protection, is just as truly a crime when perpetrated against a vicious man, as when it is committed against a virtuous man. In truth, it is by so much a greater crime when done by a legislature or a congress than when done by an individual, as there is more power in such bodies to execute their purposes, than there is in an individual.

;

The plural marriages of the Mormons, if there be no force nor fraud used in effecting or maintaining them, do not violate the rights in person or property of other people, or of any person they are not overt or "open acts against peace and good order." They are not in opposition to his social duties but are, on the contrary, in the performance of what the parties to them most religiously believe to be their social duties. A marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman for social purposes. The parties thereto have each one a natural right to enter into such contract, if thereby they violate no other person's rights. In the case of a proposed second marriage of the same man and another woman, no person, so far as I can see, can reasonably object to it, unless it be the first wife. If she do not object, much more if she favor the proposed second marriage, I do not see any reasonable objection to it. It may not be to my taste, nor to your taste but we are not parties to it; our tastes ought not to control other independent persons' marriage preferences. It certainly is against our prejudices. But prejudices are subtle enemies. They enslave and dwarf every person who entertains them. As I have said, the parties to a proposed second marriage have a natural right to enter into such contract, if thereby they violate no other person's rights. No other person, or legislature is rightfully entitled to oppose, or remonstrate against it, otherwise than by moral means. Force or fraud authorized or employed against any of the married parties, is itself a crime. Legislators who authorize it are, in my opinion, greater criminals, than are the ignorant, povertystricken, or money-making officials who execute their statutes.

In my younger days I was a Baptist; for twenty-five years was a member of a Baptist church. Some of the principles of the Baptists are especially dear to me. Sorry am I, that in the existing mad uproar against the Latter-Day Saints, (for so the Mormons call themselves) certain Baptist ministers and editors have not learned, or perhaps have forgotten, the principle of "unlimited toleration for all religious systems," promulged by Roger Williams and President Way