I am challenged again to prove that polygamy is no prevention of prostitution. It has been affirmed time and time again, not only in this discussion, but in the written works of these distinguished gentlemen around me, that in monogamic countries prostitution, or what is known as the social evil, is almost universally prevalent. I perceive that I have not time to follow out this in arguments; but I am prepared to prove, and I will prove it in your daily papers, that prostitution is as old as authentic history; that prostitution has been and is to-day more prevalent in polygamic countries than in monogamic countries. I can prove that the figures representing prostitution in monogamic countries are all overdrawn. They are overdrawn in regard to my native city, that the gentleman brought up, New York, and of the million and over of population he can not find six thousand recorded prostitutes. I can go, for instance, to St. Louis, where they have just taken the census of the prostitutes of that city, and with a population of three hundred thousand, there are but 650 courtesans. You may go through the length and breadth of this land, and in villages containing from one thousand to ten thousand inhabitants, you cannot find a house of prostitution. The truth is, my friends, they would not allow it for a moment. Those men who assert that our monogamous country is full of prostitutes put forth a slander upon our country. Our distinguished friend referred to religious liberty, and claimed that he had a right under the Federal Constitution to enjoy religious liberty and to practise polygamy. I am proud as he is that we have religious liberty here. I rejoice that a man can worship God after his own heart; but I affirm that the law of limitation is no less applicable to religious liberty than it is to the revolution of the heavenly bodies. The law of limitation is as universal as creation, and religious liberty must be practised within the bounds of decency, and the wellbeing of society; and civil authority may extend or restrict this religious liberty within due bounds. Why, the Hindoo mother may come here with her Shasta--with her Bible--and she may throw her babe into your river or lake, and the civil authorities, according to your theory, could not interpose and say to that mother, "You shall not do it." That is the theory. You say it is murder, I say it is not. I say the act is stripped of the attributes of murder; it is a religious act. She turns to her bible or Shasta, and says: "I am commanded to do this by my bible." What will you do? You will turn away from the Shasta and say, "The interests of society demand that you shall not murder that child." So civil government has the right to legislate in regard to marriage, and restrict the number of wives to one, according to God's law. But I am not an advocate of stringent legislation. I agree with my friend, that the law should not incarcerate men, women and children