The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-03-24

ANDERSON'S SPEECH
The Judges Argument Before
the Congressional Committee.
In FAVOR OF HOME RULE In UTAH
He States that Conditions Have Changed and
the People are Prepared to
Govern Themselves.
IN FAVOR OF HOME RULE In UTAH

Judge T. J. Anderson, of the supreme
bench of Utah, made two arguments before
the congressional committee on the Utah
bill, the official report OF which is herewith
published:
MIR. Chairman and gentlemen of the COM
mittee. AS has already been remarked, 1
am accidentally in the city and l did not
come to Washington to work for or against
the passage Of any bill affecting Uteh, or
| anything whatever of that kind. 1 csme
for no such purpose. l had some private
matters in the east that required my atten-
ton and having come part of the way con-
Guided to come on to Washington. I do
not wish to be understood az appearing
here in the light of a politician working for
the interests Of a political party, or any
thing of that kind. Since 1 have been in
Utah l have held aloft from politics il Salt
Lake, where [ have lived, ana while excite
ment has run high at times l have not at
tended any political meetings, not deeming
it proper for me to do so, and have made no
political speeches in that territory or any
where else. That was out of Difference to
the position l now hold. Bull do not mean
by that that l have taken no interest IN
matters that have been going on, for in fact
l have taken q lively interest in the affairs
OF the people of that territory, and hence
do not deem it improper that should give
you the result of my experience there.
do not care to go back over the past history
of the Mormon church and the relation it
boe toip Ipit OF
Utah itself.
When l first went to Utah l had the i'm
presssion-and got it partly from reading
report made 10 the House OF Representa-
tIVes by the committee on territories that
in going there saould De confronted with
a theory rather than a condition; that is 10
say, that there was no polygamy then being
pracdced In Utah. l had seen it stated
that only l OR per cent, or not more than
5 per cent of the Mormons were polyga-
mlsts. That is u great mistake. it is only
true in a certain sense There is founda-
lion Tor IT, and yet IL is misleading. There
have been in the last Six or eight years,
from the time the enforcement of the law
in Utah egan, some fifteen or sixteen hun
dred men sent 10 the penltenlary for viola
lions of the law against polygamy, and
though they We're not indicted and con-
vcited for polygamy, they were neverthe-
less guilty Of that offence. For instance, l
believe the governor stated in his report
made for cde year, ] think beginning in
1859 and ending IN September, 1890, that
there mad been 357 convictions for viola
tons of the law against. poygamy in Utah.
That would make more than one day, a
constant procession to the penitentiary
Now, as explaining what L said moment
ago about there being so few cases of polyg-
amy in Utah, and about its being mislead-
ivorr I Icb IN fotn hiu fonf thot ~
dictments in almost every case were for
unlawful cohabiGation, for the reason that
polygamy can not be proven as there is no
record OF the plural marriage. There have
been few convictions for polygamy, but
the great majority of the convictions have
been Tor unlaw full Capitalization, and are
not technically cases OF polygamy. | am
sa e in saying that of the hundreds that
have been convicted before me, almost
everyone has been convicted of unlawful
cohabitatlon, and that after conviction they
would state the date OF their plural ar
risge. In other words, every case was
case of polygamy IN fact, but the convic-
ton were not Tor polygamy utfor unlaw-
full cohabitation or adultery. So far as my
court is concerned, not more than three or
four have been convicted of the crime of
polygamy. One of these was a man
seventy-two years old who had married his
plural wife in 1886 and he was indicted in
1887. He escaped and was rearrested and
came in and pleaded guilty. He was an old
man and promised TO obey the laws, and
suspended sentence in his case.
Last October another party who had
lived near Beaver, at the edge of the town
where the court was neld, was indicted for
adultery, and when called up for sentence
he said that The woman with whom he was
charged with committing the crime was
his plural wife, and that he had married
her in the latter part of 1887. He was
not indicted for polygamy, but his state
meDt showed he was guilty of it. | Will
state that until October, $780, in every in
stance l asked each defendant before pass
ing sentence whether he was willing to
obey the law, and very few of them would
promise to do it. They almost uniformly
refused. There were young men in the