The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-11-27
The Po!Yeamous Congressman.

| The action OF the next congress on the
case Of Brigham II. Roberts tDeu..l who
has Just been elected a representative
( from Utah. may be significant Is fore
shadowing the future rsiatiors OF me
I federal government % the MORMON
/ church While nearly al Of Utah's repre-
! sentativeS N congress have been Nor
/ mon, and Al present both senators and
/ the one representative are ardent follow
. ers OF the Prophet. the question Of poly-
amy mas not been so directly raised since
statehood Was granted as now Messss-
cannon. Rawllns and Kin. are Mormons,
hut not polygamisIs. II has Ions been
charged that this Nj Roberts = al actual
/ polySamist- and with that unders snd-g
( he has been nominated an. elected 10
congress Other pOlygamists have h9d
seats IN congress from Utah notably
George =. Cannon. who was a territorial
delegate. bur when Utah became , stare
her people promised IN the most irnpras-
sive manner 20 prohibit plural mar. .a@es
within her borders forever such were
the terms OF the enabling act II. 30 soon
after these promises were made. Utah
elects a man 20 congress who can Re
proved 70 BE- a polygamist. IL wiz certain
I j. look as II her good behavior agree ment
did not mean much. and may foreshadow
a wholesale reVerslon 70 polysamy before
many wears are passed.
IN discussing AIR. Roberts righ- q a
scat n the house the question IS, what can
congress do about il. even II ne Is a p3-
lygamist2 4 similar question might -
asked as 10 the attitude OF congress to-
ward a general renewal OF poly gtmy IA
Utah, IN case il should ever be uudcr,a-
ken. Representative Cooney tDem.. MOI
says THAI Mr.. Roberts was. beyond doubr.
fairly elected BY the people % Utah. and.
that being the case. should not be I'M
seated II he had a thousand wives. Other
representatives also announce their inteu-
ton Of voting against unsesting Mr Rob-
erts. The Utah man himself SAYS that
the demand of the American people. as
expressed in the enabling act went no
further than 10 assure perfect tolerance
OF religious sentiment. provided that 20
lysamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited in other words. that the de-
mand went only so FAR as % prohibit ''fu-
ture' polygamOus marriages. the contin-
uance of those already formed az the time
Of the adoption OF the new constitution
being perfectly proper. This Is typical
tab view. BY a sort Of common consent
the old polygamous marriages arc allow
ed TO continue. under some Httle disguise
perhaps, but the making OF new contracts
OF that sort by the younger generation
is looked upon as at variance with the
agreement OF the church. Whether tho
United States government viii take this
view Of the case in regard 10 Mr.. Roberts
remains 10 be seen. Mr. Dingley IS quoted
as saying that the election OF a polyga-
mist to congress, in the face OF Utah's
solemn pledge, is an affrout so grave that
he thinks the house cannot avoid taking
some notice Of IL: and. II the charges can
DC proved they may possibly lead % his
expulsion from the house
The outcome in the actual case now be-
fore congress. and in the larger one which
may be feared for the future. viii depend
much upon public sentiment. Through
the courts. pOlygamists could be very
much vexed in case the question became
Il live one again. In matters involving
the transmission OF property. dover
rights. etc. the United States courts could
upset any local permiSsions which Utah
might grant IN defiance OF IT'S enabling
act. And stlll more drastic measures
might he taken by the courts when the
time came. II public sentiment in the rest
Of the country were so disposed.