The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-12-09


Asserts 1t Is Based Upon, Say His
Accusers-CInim That He Is Il Flu
gitive From Charges of Felony
in His Native State.
WASHINGTON, Dec. S.-Mr. Brigham
Roberts address to The American Peo-
ple' was answered today by a delega-
ton representing the gentle element in
Utah. who are here to oppose Mr.. Rob
erts. The answer is as follows:
I'm this mornings paper Mr. Roberts
made an appeal for sympathy in which
are many statements needing correction,
while many facts are suppressed.
''Mr. Roberts claims that the prece-
dent made by his exclusion is both new
and dangerous. That 1t is not new is
ccnclusively shown by Mr.. Taylor In his
able legal argument before the house,
and not a single precedent to the contrary
was cited where the ground Of objection
was ineligibility. Neither is the prece-
dent dangerous. Whenever a 'prima
| facie' case is made against a members
citizenship by showing that under
conviction for felony against the laws of
| the United States he Is disfranchised
and, further. that by reason of his pres
ent maintenance of the status of po-
lygamist he is again suffering from civil
disability under the Edmunds anti-po-
lygamy act, such a member refusing even
to deny the charge should be ex-
Guided. Nor is this dangerous, for 1t is
not likely, as Mr.. Roberts seems to as
sumo, that an entire minority of all
representatives of a large state are COM
ing to congress to carry such a burden
In other states men who flaunt their vfo-
lations of these laws of decency in the
face of the public are sent to the peni-
tertiary. 1t is only IN Utah where such
indecency ever added to ones eligibility,
and served as a recommendation to po-
liticaf preferment.
AN ERRONEOUS CLAIM
'Mr. Roberts contention that no evil
dence of his guilt can be shown except a
judicial record of his conviction In Utah
as matter of law, is erroneous, and.
as a matter Of PRACTICE dangerous, be-
cause Mr.. Roberts and his all
powerful and inspired priesthood can pre-
| vent such conviction if they consider it
worth while
''Mr. Roberts claims that whatever
| were his civil disabilities before state
hood. they were removed by the adop-
ton of the state constitution. If at the
| time Of passage of the enabling act Mr..
Roberts was, as he seems In his appeal to
admit, disfranchised by act of congress.
and therefore not a full citizen of the
| United States, as by the constitution he
must be to become a member Of con-
| gress. he is still in the same condition,
1xn0
| not restore him to federal citizenship
and the enabling act did not do it. The
| enabling act of Utah, unlike that of some
| other states, required citizenship of the
! United States as a qualification for vot-
| ing, and did not confer that citizenship
| upon those then not such citizens Hence
Mr.. Roberts statement that by Utah be-
| coming a state he was rehaDilitated with
| the wanting attributes of citizenship Is
unwarranted.
''Mr. Roberts says he has not been con-
| vtcted since statehood. 1t does not fol-
! low that he is innocent He is now a
| fugitive from justice in Salt Lake county
on a charge Of unlawful cohabitation,
| and in Davis county, Utah, where re-
sides one of his polygamous wives, with
! two illegitimate twins, born Aug H. 1897
| a charge of adultery "a felony under the
laws of Utah) has been for two months
pigeonholed by a Mormon prosecuting at
! torney.
CHARGED WITH FELONY.
Mr.. Roberts, in his attempt to belittle
| his crimes, insists that he is ONLY charged
with misdemeanor. He knows better.
He knows that he has been, under oath
and before the proper prosecuting Of
f1cers, charged with the felony of aduI-
terry, as well as the misdemeanor of un-
lawful cohabitation. He asserts that in
| 1889 he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
! only, and also says that if he were guilty
| or the same acts in the District of Colun-
bia, even fiagrantly So that, as a mem
] Der of congress, he could not be arrested
! therefor because it is only a. misde-
meanor. Here, again, Mr.. Roberts states
what is not true, and he ought to know
| 1t. Unlawful cohabitation under the Ed
| munds act, under which he pleaded
| guilty, is felony, as also is adultery,
! with which Mr.. Roberts Is charged in
! Davis county, Utah. In the District Of
! Columbia both unlawful cohabitation and
| adultery are felonles, as defined by the
| Utah statutes, and 1t is only in Utah
| that the former is a misdemeanor
These charges, in view of the Ed
munds and Edmunds-Tucker laws of the
| United States, still in force, warrant Mr.
/ Roberts exclusion. They are aggra-
vated however, because his is not an
! isolated case, but one representative of
| system.
Many sentimental people are being
misled by Mr.. Roberts very ingenious
! suggestions, from which some people in
| fer that he took his polygamous wives
| when 1T was lawful to do So This is a
| mistake. Adultery was a crime In Utah
| when Mr.. Roberts was born and at the
| time of the passage of the Cullom anti
| polygamy act Mr.. Roberts was only six
years old. His plea for sympathy there
| fore amounts only to this-that he should
| be allowed to keep up his criminal prac-
tice, notwithstanding he took his plyga-
/ nous wives in defiance of law We de-
mand that he should support his families
but also demand that he shall cease the
! begetting of further illegitimate Off
| spring, and this is our only bone of con-
| tention-the only thing demanded which
| he refuses to yield. In this matter we
disclaim any desire to have him de-
clared ineligible because he is Mormon,
but solely because he Is violating and de-
flying the laws of our state, of the United
States and Of common decency.
AS TO MORMON ISSUE.
"Ex-Congressman w H King was and
| is a Mormon, and no claim Of ineligibilitv
was ever made against him. We point to
this fact as showing that we oppose Mr.
Roberts, not upon the ground of any re-
| ligious opinions entertained by him, but