St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1899-12-06
The Present Situation in Utah.

1t is quite clear to all those that
live in Utah that polygamy is not a
thing OF the past, but living issue.
If words mean anything, these
words QUOTED from the Amnesty
Petition, 1871 mean that they
promised complete surrender of
polygamy. On the strength of this
surrender the amnesty proclama lions
of Presidents Harrison and Cleve.
land were issued, and statehood was
granted. The state constitution
contains 9 clause prohibiting polyga-
my, and the statutes law against
polygamous practices. But, after
statehood was granted, the teaching
OF polygamy was gradually revived
and the practice of it became more
and more evident. 1t is now boldly
defended. B. H. Roberts, congress
man elect, in an article published last
year over his own name in a maya
zine which is the organ of the young
peoples societies of the Mormon
church, said. "M&dern Christians
must either learn to tolerate polyga-
my or>give up forever the glorious
hope of resting in Abraham's
BOSOM" Nathan Tanner, IT,, in
November, 1898, said that the
covenant of the Mormon people
promising to abandon poIygamy
was obtained by duress and was
therefore not binding upon those
who made it,"
In reply to campaign speech of
Governor Wells, speaking OF the law
against polygamy, B. H. Roberts
said: "The law crept into our
statute books by what may be
called an inadvertence. There has
been no public sentiment that de-
manded its execution, and like some
OF the Blue laws of Connecticut it
has not been enforced"
You will see by these instances,
which are but samples of many
Others, that polygamy is believed in,
is defended, and its rights set def
antly above their own promises, and
the constitution and laws of their
own state. This might have re-
manned, tor time at least, local
or state issue, had it not been for the
electionto Congress of B. H. Roberts.
tie is man about fortv.two years
OF age, a prominent official in the
Mormon church and the husband of
three wives. Just ten years ago he
was serving in the penitentiarv. l
have in my hand copy of the court
proceedings at his trial. After being
fugitive for two years he came
back and pleaded guilty, and was
sent to the penltentiary where he
served his term. The crime to which
he plead guilty was that of having
two wives. He has now repented
himself by taking third. Do you
not wonder why the man who was
sent to the penitentiary for having
two wives in 1889, should be sent to
Congress with three wives in 1899? |
We oppose the seating of Mr..
Roberts in Congress, not because he
IS Mormon, but because he is a de-
hant law breaker. Just here there
mas been considerable confusion in
the discussion Of the case. Those
who defend Mr.. Roberts have a
great deal to say about religious
liberty, and keep insisting that non
Mormons are preiudiced against him
on account of his ecclesiastical con-
nections. This confusionis not who'll
iy unnatural nor inexplicable. 1t so
happens that the thing which is
violation OF the law, is also with Mr..
Roberts, religious truth, so that
while we stand opposed to law
breaking, by that very act also are
what is to him, he saws,
matter of religion. But for this con-
fusion we are not responsible.
1t goes without saving that if this
impudent law-breaker, this bold
covenant breaker is to be expelled
from Congress it must be in response
to the will of an indignant nation,
and not by the choice of a majority
OF the people OF Utah. To unseat
Roberts will be not an easv task.