The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-27
THeT UTAH CONGRESSMAN.


gates in State conventions, where they are heard as
we'll seen.
In the last Democratic State convention, when Mr..
Roberts was proposed as the nominee Tor congress
a lady delegate made speech against him. IN Which
she in elaborate detail gave the reasons why ne
should not be nominated She said she was prepared
to prove that he the father OF three chlioren
whose ages only a few months apart, the OH
spring of plural marriages, polygamy. The issue
was raised against him during the campaign, and no
answer was made to it. except to charge that 1t was
merely appeal to religious prejudice as force III
politics. He elected, and the matter goes 10
the next House for test and trial.
The best friends of the admission OF Utah to state
hood were opposed to polygamy and pledged the sim
cerity of the Mormon hierarchy and people IN their
abandonment of it. The Tucker-Edmunds law up
held by the Supreme Court OF the United States, fao
borne heavily upon the Mormons, and many OF them
had performed legal expiation OF the otfense OF
polygamy Among these Roberts himself had stood
Imprisonment, upon due conviction.
To the credit of human nature let 1t be admitted
that the enforcement OF the ant-polygamy law lur-
rished many instances of sterling manhood on the
part of the men convicted under it They refused 70
abandon their plural wives to infamy and their chill
dren to the stain of ilegtimacy and while they prom
sed obedience the law which punished them MADE
ample provision for their wives and children
in her constitution making polygamy felony and
upon pledge to enforce it by legislation which would
give the courts jurisdiction. There is a question
among LAWYERS whether admission State ended
Federal jurisdiction this question The con-
stituton had be passed upon by Congress- and the
anti -polygamy provision became an act OF Congress
thereby Whether thereafter it became State mat
ter solely may have to be determined The people OF
State have always been held to have the sole power
to change and amend their constitution, with the
single limitation that it must conform to the consttu
ton of the United States. The latter instrument does
not forbid polygamy The domestic relations by
it left to State regulation 1t did forbid slavery
which existed solely as domestic institution, created
and protected by State constitutions and laws, until
it was forbidden by the thirteenth amendment to the
Federal constitution, which was declared to be rat1-
fed December Is, 1865
Since Utah was admitted the rumors OF a return to
plural marriages in that State have risen and in
creased. The Gentle population is small minority
OF the whole people. The Mormons when united,
can control the elections and the State poty without
Gentle alliance and in defiance OF the minority sem
timent II they choose to this power to return
to practice which they pledged themselves to aban
don as condition precedent to statehood, they can
do So but they must take the consequences. There
is no way by which State may be expelled from the
Union and reduced again to territorial subsection
The proper mode for reaching the Utah case by an
amendment to the Federal constitution prohibiting
polygamy to be enforced by appropriate legislation
This will make it Federal question: the
slavery and it will be within the jurisdiction solely
OF the Federal courts The discussion OF the Roberts
case has called out the expression OF some singular
views
United States Senator Cannon himself monog
amist in practice, though Mormon and the son of
one of the greatest in the church. has dismissed
the matter by saying that free coinage OF silver and
not polygamy the issue in the late campaign
and it will do good to refuse his seat to Roberts
for the State will elect free silver in his place
| OF course this is apparent appeal along political
lines and seems intended to create the impression
that the opposition to Roberts is really on account OF
his financial views.
If this be the Senator's purpose, clarvoyant
sight is required to see that it is merely special
pleading.
! No one cares what the financial views of Mr.
Roberts may be. He is entitled to their possession
| and expression The whole country cares, however
what his practices in his domestic relations may be-
Ii he is living in polygamy, in defiance OF the funda-
mental law OF his State in violation OF the pledge
Of the hierarchy of his church, and in defiance of the
moral sentiment of the American people, the House
cannot evade the issue presented If, proof of his
offense the House seat him. it will be taken in Utah
as Endorsement Of the covert violation of the consti
tuition of the State and what may now be assumed
a secret relation will to be practced openly
as it was before the Tucker Edmunds law prohibited
and punished it.
If Roberts is denied his seat, the next step should
be the reference of anti polygany amendment to
the constitution for ratification by the States. The
first Republican platform denounced the twin relics
OF barbarsm slavery and poygamy." The party can
only gain by standing by that declaration and adding
to the abolition of slavery the Federal prohibition Of
plural marriage
threat to put face on man has heretofore been
regarded as in the nature of threat, but New York