The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-09
IN ANSWER TO ROBERTS
Gent of q tab Formulate Their
Charges.
FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
He Is Charged With the Felony OF Adult
tery-He Took His Polygamous Wives
in Defiance o. Law-Laws o. Com
mon Decency Violated.

Washington, Dec. S.-An answer to
Brigham H. Roberts address to the
American people was made to-day by
delegation representing the Gentle
element in Utah, who are here to OPP
pose Mr.. Roberts. The answer Is as
follows:
In this mornings papers Mr.. Rob-
erts makes an appeal for sympathy in
which are many statements needing
correction, while many facts are sup
pressed.
Mr.. Roberts claims that the precedent
made by his exclusion is both new and
dangerous. That it Is not new was
ccnclusively shown by Mr.. Taylor in
hts 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 precedent dangerous.
Whenever a prima face case is made
against members citizenship, show
ing that under a conviction for felony
against the laws of the United States
he is disfranchised, and further that
by reason of his present maintenance
Of the status of a polygamist he is
again suffering from civil disability
under the Edmunds anti-polygamy
act. such a member refusing even to
deny the charge, shall be excluded. Nor
is this dangerous, for it is not likely,
as Mr.. Roberts seems to assume, that
an entire minority or all representatives
OF a large state are coming 70 con-
gress carrying such burden. In other
states men who fiaunt their violations
CT these laws of decency In the face of
the public are sent to the penitentiary.
1t is only in Utah where such fndecency
ever added to ones eligibility and serv-
ed as 9. recommendation to political
Dreferment.
Mr. Roberts contention that no evil
dence of his guilt can be received. ex-
cept q judicial record of his convic-
| ton in, Utah, as a matter Of law. is
| erroneous, and as. matter OF prac-
| tice dangerous, because Mr.. Roberts
and his all powerful and inspired
| priests can prevent 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.
II at the time of the passage of the
enabling act, Mr.. Reborts was, as he
seems in his appeal to admit, disfran-
chised by act of congress, and there
fore not a full citizen of the United
|
be- to become a member OF congress,
then he is still in the same condition,
! because the constitution of Utah could
! not restore him to federal citizenship
and the enabling act did not do it.
| The enabling act Of Utah, unlike that
of some states, required citizenship OF
| the United States as qualification for
voting, and did not confer that clti-
| Zenship upon those then not such citi-
zens. Hence Mr.. Roberts statement
| that by Utah becoming state he was
rehabilitated with the wanting attrib-
utes of the citizenship is unwarranted.
Mr.. Roberts says he has not been con-
victed since statehood. 1t does not fol-
| low that he Is innocent. He is now
| fugitive from justice in Salt Lake coun-
ty on a charge of unlawful cohabitation,
and in Davis county, Utah, where re-
sides one of his polygamous wives, with
her illegitimate twins, born Aug. II,
| 1897, a charge of adultery Ga felony I'M
! der the laws Of Utah) has been for two
months pigeonholed by Mormon pros
ecuting attorney.
| Mr. Roberts. in his attempt to be-
little his crimes, insists that he is only
| charged with a misdemeanor. He
| knows better. He knows that he has
been under oath and before the proper
| prosecuting officers charged with the
felony of adultery as we'll as the mis-
l.
asserts that in 1889 he pleaded guilty TO
misdemeanor only. and also says that
if he were guilty of the same acts in
| the District of Columbia, "even flag
rantly So that as a member of con-
gress, he could not be arrested therefor,
for it is only a misdemeanor. Here
| again Mr.. Roberts states what is not
true, as he ought to know it. Unlawful
ohabitation under the Edmunds act
under which he pleaded guilty, was a
felony, as also is adultery, with which
Mr.. Roberts is charged in Davis coun-
ty. Utah In the District of Columbia
both unlawful cohabitation and adul-
terry are felonies, as defined by tbs
Utah statutes, and it is only in Utah
that the former is a misdemeanor.
These charges, in view of the Ed
munds and Edmunds-Tu law OF
the United States, are still in force
wherein Roberts exclusion.
Many sensational people are being
misled by Mr.. Roberts very ingenious
suggestions, from which some people
infer that he took his polygamous wive.
when it was lawful to do so. This /:
a mistake. Adultery was a crime II
Utah when Mr.. Roberts was born, ant
at the time of the passage Of the Cul
lom anti-polygamy act Mr. Robert!
was only s years of age. His plea fo
sympathy therefore amounts only t,
this, that he should be allowed to con
tinue his criminal practices notwith
standing he took his polygamous wives
in defiance of law We demand that III
should support his families, but ais
demand that he shall cease the beget
ting of further illegitimate offspring AM
this is our only bone of contention ant
the only thing demanded which he re
fuses to yield. In this matter we dis
claim any desire to have him declared