The Portland daily press., 1898-12-10
The HORIZONS.
Lessons on the Recent Election in the
State Of Utah.
1T GIVES THE LIE TO THE MORMON
PROMISES OF REFORMATION.
The Selection of Brigham H. Roberts as
the Democratic Candidate--His Relations
to the Mormon Church and Its Pet Ins.i-
tuition.


to the Mormon Church and It's Pet Inssi-
tuition.
(Letter to the N. Y. Post
Salt Lake City. November 2s.
The nomination Of Brigham FL. Roberts
for Representative in Congress by the
Democra sic party of Utah was explained
in variety of ways. We were assured
that the First Presidency of the Mormon
Church had caused him to be nominated
simply for the sake of defeating him, SO
that the country at large might see how
strictly Utah kept her pledges OF good be-
havior; that the First Presidency had
nominated him simply to "try it on, =
and see how far they might rely upon the
compliance of the Gentiles; that the First
Presidency had nominated him as de-
fiance to the IL oral sentiment of the coun-
try, and notice to the Gem
| tiles in Utah that the Mormons proposed
to lives their religion once more regard
less of pledges or statutes.
1t is noticeable that it was not explained
that Mr.. Roberts was nominated on
political grounds, because he was a
prominent silver advocate, for instance,
or a supporter of the Democratic tariff
policy, or even q leader In the Dmocratic
party of Utah and endeared to it's parti-
sans. On the contrary his nomination
was bitterly opposed by many Of the
stanchest Democrats of the state, and
many of his closest personal friends be-
sought him to withdraw from thescontest,
foreseeing the storm of indignation which
his election must raise. At one tine MIR.
Roberts did enjoy the admiration and
confidence of thu Democratic party of
Utah, when he made his memorable cam
paign in the autumn of 1895 on the issue
of personal independence of church dicta-
ton; but he soon betrayed the confidence
OF his supporters. and proved that his own
personal independence was pitiable
thing, and he has since that time been
rslsgated to his proper place among the
officers and advocates of his church. and
has had no standing among political
leaders. Mr.. Roberts Is powerful de-
batter, but he has none of that personal
magnetism which blinds the people to
defects of private character and carries
| them away in spite OF their Ca Inner judg-
ments; and his most devoted adherent
would scarcely try to make hero OF
him.
| Without attempting to fathom the on
| tentions of the leaders of the MormiH-
/ Church, who have commendable habit
OF keeping their own counsel, the election
| Of Mr. Roberts certainly demonstrates the
| fact that man can be elected Repre- SEN
| tative from Utah who is living in polyg-
amy, in defiance of the prohibitions of his
church and the laws of his state, and who
admits that the pledges under which a
statehood was granted to Utah were
meant to be kept only SO far as suited
tie convenience Of the men who made
them. Briefly, it proves that majority
OF the people of Utah Sea no reason why
| a pulygamist and politica! confidence
man should not represent them in Con-
eress. 1t is fair to add that the election
Of Mr. Roberts was by no means unani-
nous. that the analysis Of the returns
| shows that considerable Mormon vote
was cast against him, and that the Re-
publican candidate was an obscure cOun-
/ Try store keeper, without political prestige
or personal following, Mormon himself
and said to have been polyganlist and
DANTE or "Ayenging Angel" in the
| GAYS Oh nrlRud!u 1OubSt
! Il ad the Republican candidate been
| more attractive to the enthusiasm, or
more satisfactory to the Judgment of the
voters, blr. Roherts's majority might
have been reduced, but as 1t was the ap.
peals of the Republican press and speakers
to the people of Utah to prove themselves
worthy of the trust raposed in them, and
the injury which must follow the election
! CT MIR. Roberts, made no Roadway against
| the evident determination Of the church
| leaders to elect him. There is still some
! talk of contesting his seat before Congress
or of preventing the Board o CRnyassers
| from issuing his certificate of election by
an appeal to the courts, but the opposition
seems to lack head and definite pur.
pose, and probably nothing will come Of
| it.
Since the manifesto of the President OF
the Mormon Church, issued in 1890. an
nouncedthst poly gamyand plural marrIag-
| es were henceforth prohibited, In defer
| ence to the laws OF the United States, and
the subsequent Incorporation OF this pro-
! hibition in the constitution OF Utah, we
| have had to admit, now and then, that
polygamous relationships were kept up,
and the first State Legislature took Off
| cinI conni2ance of the fact by its re-
markabIe act legitimatizing all children
Of such marriages born sprior to January
| 4, 1896. But we have consoled ourselves
! W1Gl Uu6 IGlGCtlCA ebRU W pIduAOctuo
polygamy among people taught to con-
slider it lawful and sacred must be slow
process, and that in spite of all pledges
and prohibitions, we must expect infrac-
tions now and then. Now, however, it is
necessary to face the fact that polygamy
| is not dying out, but that the campaign
of education is directed in quite ths oppo-
site direction, and that the doctrine and
practice of polygamy are again being
taught the people by example and precept.
| MT. Roberts declared in a signed inter
view few days before the election:
| The demand of the American people as
expressed through their representatives
in the American Congress in the enabling
act went no further tnan this: ssThat per
feet tolerance of religious sentiment shall
| be secured provided polygamous OF
| plural marriages are forever prohibited. "
That is, the demand went so far as to
prohibit future polygamous marriages
| but no further. The part (of the terri
torial statute) relating to unlawful
| Capitalization was purpose1y omitted, be-
cause there was no demand in the enab-
ling act to interfere with existing rela-
tons growing out of the Mormon system
l ~ s,ti