Mr. Varian was of the opinion that since this territorial enactment invaded the field already occupied by congressional enactment it was void, and that when Utah became a state the territorial law would not be in force in the state, and of course the congressional enactments applicable to the territory would cease to be operative upon the attainment of statehood; hence he thought it necessary to make this constitutional provision against "polygamous or plural marriages." But the part of the territorial law relating to polygamous living or "unlawful cohabitation"--to use the phrase of the law itself--was not made part of the Constitution of this state. And why? Because the demand made by the people of the United States did not reach to that condition. The demand was only: "provided polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." There were other lawyers in the constitutional convention who contested Mr. Varian's opinion, and insisted that this law of the territory would be operative in the state, and therefore there was no need of adopting his amendment; whereupon a protracted and earnest debate took place, in the course of which it was pointed out to Mr. Varian that he had cut this old territorial law in two; he had taken the part that defined and prohibited "polygamy or plural marriages" and made it part of the Constitution, but he had left out the part of the law relating to unlawful cohabitation, and the effect of such action by implication would be to repeal that part of the territorial law defining and punishing unlawful cohabitation. In the course of the argument made on that point in the convention the following took place: Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask you [Mr. Varian] a question. The gentleman will agree with me that your [his] amendment will repeal the other kindred offenses in that statute?" Mr. Varian [answering Mr. Evans]--No; there is nothing to repeal. If you want the other kindred offenses [dealt with], my answer is, prohibit them by law under penalties. * * * * Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask one question. Suppose the act of 1892 were valid? (i. e., the territorial law dealing with polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, polygamous living, is referred to)-- Mr. Varian--If the law were valid I should not then introduce-- Mr. Evans (Weber)--Wouldn't it then repeal everything except the polygamy? Mr. Varian--If the law were valid it might repeal by implication, although repeals by implication are not favored.[A] [Footnote A: Constitutional Convention Proceedings, vol. ii, p. 1748.]