The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-11-30
SOME VIEWS A n;
(sENT Ry =,

.s' 81 G. A. mn.
Washington, Novsnbsr y
ai.)---If this Roberts ~. y
legitimate conclusion. a.. \.
congress will be one Of ~.
than any congress that 81.
capital. OF course. Ii ca =,
that congress at ali linz, Y,
reproach on account q n
assemblage Of men comm. I.
OF the country as thew A. ~
!, Besides there are NAM ~ !.
DISTINGUISHED men on n.
admired by beautitul 1870. ~
galleries. These iistineu,'s
remain Indifferent to tSis :.
ton. In every session ~
members who find this s.
TO their personal puIchrI,sss
guished mental ability vsr. WY "
the monotonous and dry.s ~ w.
legislation. The people ~ ~
accustomed ,..,, to this and hs,s "
a little blind to the mo,., ~ "
of men in congress. M.
regard them as a matter !; ~
sentiment. however, hss ~.
over this Roberts case hi !,
TO have a moral influence ~.
gress and future Congress.
so
Especially ought Il to h.v,
iect on this congress that /. ..,!l
unseat a man for alleged IN,
tees. There seems 10 <. h.
ior the unseating Of Robert, NJ
the aroused moral sense q n. n.
there are going to be seyer., ,'.
way CT meeting this demanS u
Unless Roberts brings mora ~
to Washington or publicl, ~
polygamous practices sincs *. n
the Edmunds' act it look, N. n.
ps, Unable 10 DO anything but =
Roberts. How is congress !.
official knowledge OF Ma M,
had ever been convicted ii /. s ss,s'
or II he is indicted there b,is,s
meets. 1t might simnliiy ms,,.
what, but it looks like no susn q, y.
be done. If he be guilty chs,,s
preferred, but congress hu n - n.
right to try Roberts for erin. N \!
have been committed In stss. 4
itself is to blame for this ,l,u,,,,s
Utah applied for admission inis \.
her constitution was not scrusi,,,I
ly enough. and the possibility a
amist getting into congress n. !.
vided against.
When the enabling act VA Y.
congress, it was required Of rub
constitution should prohibit ID
that her admission was not 10 Il,
mntil that constitution bad ~
amined and approved BY conus.
was done, but it seems that ths /,
ton deemed satisfactory By ccnr,1
not have q trap In 1t that cVdl
Roberts. Those who think ths d
in this case can be overcome, pla
reliance in the belief that conrfes
be judge of the qualifications Il h
members.
There is misconception o. u, II
many people as to the meaning 1
provision. 1t does not mean tAa
gress can declare special diiqnIi1
in the case Of one man, which vx
apply with equal force to anI e!lel
coming within the description q
has a perfect right to decids Y
relation of the Edmunds' sattse
law, polygamy by that law bslrt
within the Federal jurisdictlars
application can not be confined VI
specific case If others are bFotsA
1t must apply to all alike. TINS
gives importance and sigindana
Roberts case. There must b y
application OF the principles 100
this case and consequently he y
uron congress must be mster!lE
the people whose moral seus'rln
shocked succeed In unseating Kc'e
The Edmunds anti-polygary W
force in the District Of columai
as elsewhere, and there have MS
convictions in the districI eouu
though none OF them was q pfomlaH
son. The law comprehends vioat
the marital obligations, which u'
would term intidelity, as well Isl
ity of actual marriages, and u u;
ton of this law is formally resos,
the house as grounds for tue ~
members from congress, It wlll w.
" have a very salutary influence y
moral tone of congress. J y
however. that 1t will have the ~.
priving beth houses Of ouo' Y.
the necessity for obedience 70 ~
fully appreciated, v
If Roberts is expelled there y
to be many prosecutions ana :
or else a lot of new cha'.s 4.
It means a rapid thInnins o. Y
in both houses at the hisnss. =
ever attained by any congress
was a Nation.