, 1898-11-29
THE PoLYGAMY QUESTION.

Tho election Of Brigham H. Roberts
OF Utah to the congress Of the United
States = likely to open up the old po-
lySamy fight in all its bitterness. a
dispatch from Washington says:
The action Of the next congress on
the case Of Brigham H. Roberts, who
hAs 3Bt been elected a representative
from Utah. may be significant as fore
shadowing the future relations Of the
general government to the Mormon
chsfcA- While nearly all Of Utah's
congreMmen have been Mormons, and
At present both senators and the one
representative are ardent followers of
that fatth, the question of poly gamy
ha0 not been directly raised since state
hood was GRANTED. Cannon, Rawlils
and King are Mormons, but not polyga-
mists. II hiss long been charged that
tf1s Mr.. Roberts Is an actual poiyga-
mlsk and with that understanding he
hA0 been nominated and elected to con-
greoo. Other polygamists have had
oea4s in congress from Utah, notably
George q. Cannon, who was a terri
toria1 delegate. but when Utah became
. UeAke she promised in the i'm
preastve manner to abandon plural
marriages and forever prohibit them
wsel19a her borders. These were the
terms Of che enabling act. If. so soon
a6ter these promises were made. Utah
elsos . man to congress. who can be
proven TO be a polygamist, it will GER
&ainfy look as II her good behavior
aSreSment did not much, and
may ifoFeshadow a wholesale reversion
70 polysamy before many years are
panbed.
Il discussing Mr.. Roberts right to a
seat h the house the question is: What
can congress do about IT, even if he is
. polyG1mist? A similar question might
b ~ to the attitude Of congress
toward = general renewal Of polygamy
IN Utah, In case It should ever be un-
dartaaDen. Representative Cooney, O
the seventh Missouri district. says tina,
Nj. Roberts was beyond doubt fairly
elec6ed by the people Of Utah, and, that
be4ne the case, should not be %unseated
II he had a thousand wives. Other rep
reoentatives also announce their inten-
too Of voting against unseating Mr.,
Roberts. The Utah man himself says
that the demand Of the American peo-
ple, a. expressed in the enabling act
went no further than this:
"Perfect tolerance Of religious senti-
ment shall be secured, provided that
poiyxamous or plural marriages are
forever prohibited. Thus the demand
wont 90 far as to prohibit future polyg.
auaous marriages. but no further"
It thus appears that Roberts makes
the point on future" polygamous mar
riaees, and evidently regards the con-
tfnuance Of those which had already
been formed at the time OF the adop.
" proper. This is a typical Utah view
BY . sort Of common consent the ole
poiygamous marriages are allowed t.
continue, under some little disguise
perhaps, but the making of new con
tracts Of that sor by the younger gen
GRAFTON IS looked upon as at variance
with the agreement of the church
Whether the United States government
VIII take this view Of the case in re
gard to Mr.. Roberts remains to be seen
Mr.. Dingley is quoted as saying tina
the election of a polygamist to con
greas, in the face of Utah's solemn
pledge, is an affront so grave that h
thinks the house could not avoid tax
ing some notice Of it, and if the charge
could be proved might easily lead t
his expulsion from the house. Their
Is q strong suspicion in many quarter
khat the United States has its real Nor
mon question yet to meet.