Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1899-12-22
MAKING GRAND STAND PLAYS.
Republican Party Seeking Cheap Note.
riety in the Roberts Case.

Republican Party Seeking Cheap Note.
riety in the Roberts Case.
1t is not because THE SPECTATOR
endorses polygamy that the following
article from the Rockingham Register
is reproduced, because such is not the
case, but it is done to expose the
grand stand plays" of the Republican
party on morality. What the Register
says is timely and shows that the Re-
publican party is playing the morality
game because it costs nothing and is
therefore cheap. Here it is:
The Republicans, as a party, land
only too many Democrats, as individ
uals) are very fond OF taking high
ground for morality-w when it doesn't
cost anything. They established
most pernicious precedent last week
by not allowing Congressman elect
Roberts to take the oath of office. This
was on the theory that because he has
three or four wives, which was lawful
in Utah at the time the marriages
were contracted, he is not fit to assO
ciate with his colleagues in the House
of Representatives, and that his ap-
pearance in that high station would
reflect upon the moral standard of our
national life.
Not one person in thousand, Of
course. has the slightest liberation for
the practice of polygamy. 1t is repul-
sive and detestible in every way. But
Roberts was duly elected by the voters
of the sovereign State of Utah, and
there was not the slightest flaw in the
bare prima facie title to his seat. He
had the same right to be sworn In as
did Speaker Henderson himself. His
credentials were as clear on their face
as those of Gen. Grosvenor, or Joe
Cannon, or any other Representative
elect. After he had been sworn in, the
House then had it's remedy and be
could have been expelled in perfect
ly legal and orderly manner.
But it pleased the majority to as
sumo cheap pose on the plea of NOR
ality, and at the same time yield to =
hysterical popular furore, by excluding
Roberts from his legal right to be
sworn in and thus depriving the State
! of T1tob ~ SIC oopct;t,t;oral r;rbt +<
be represented in the organization OF
the House.
| Many of the men who voted against
Roberts are VIGOROUSLY licentiOus
and offend in private life against the
sanctity of home and marriage fal
more fiagrantly than he does.
Every administration Republican
who voted against Roberts on high
moral grounds will be found lined up
before the session closes, in favor oil
McKinley's secret treaty with the Sui
tan of Sulu. by the terms of which
American tax payers are charged with
the support of His Royal Polygamous
Highness and his extensive harem
Their excuse for the Roberts vote is
morality" their defense of the Sulu
iniquity is destiny" The inferred
piety in both cases is of the rankesl
pinchbeck variety.
Let it be supposed that Congress
were assembling after a presidential
election, where had been no choice III
the electoral college. Then the cleo
ton would be thrown into the House
and each State would have one vote
Suppose Mr.. McKinley's reelection
depended on a single vote: and suppose
Mr.. Roberts, the sole Representative
from the State of Utah, were Repub
lican. Does anybody imagine that the
Republicans in Congress would have
put a straw in the path of Brother
Roberts Initiation into all the rights,
emoluments. and perquisites of con.
gressional life ? Just think of J. Madi-
son Wells, Ann Eliza Pinkston. and
the Louisiana Returning Board infamy
of 1876, and then answer the question.
Think of the whole stupendous steal
of Southern States in that memorable
year. Did the Republican party pause
then in the interest of morality or COM
mon honesty? No, they exemplify the
higher ideals of human conduct only
when it costs them nothing.
If McKinley's election depended on
Roberts vote, the Republicans would
have seated him though it had required
a hydraulic hoist and pile driver.