Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-11-23
RATIONAL OPINIONS.


man FOR Utah. The Springfield Republl-
can. Of Nov. Is, thoughtfully argues:
1T Is very doubtful II the influence Of
Mr. Roberts Of Utah, deplora5le as MS
matrimonial status is, upon the homes
OF America. can be- reckoned more bane-
full than that OF people who jump IRON
one connubial connection to another. by
the DEGREES OF court and clergymen,
with as complete facility as a man
can change cars. Mr. Roberts was
brought up 10 regard polygamy as
sanctioned by religion. II Is all wrong
Of course, and must be condemned. Inc
Roberts system must be suppressed Az
the same time, Roberts Is no more OF
a menace 20 society than the million
aires Of New York who get secret az.
yorces from the courts and then dety
the DEGREES annulling their marriages by
contracting new alliances, within twen-
ty-four hours, in some other state. .
"Rapid-fre divorce, as a matter OF
fact. is far more dangerous TO the
American home than Roberts with his
three wives could ever be. That Is be-
cause rapid-hne divorce has the veneer
OF legality and Is not frowned upon by
society because Il is insinuatng and
subtle in It's attack upon domestic NOR
atty. II is 70 be hoped that the force
OF the anti-ROberts movement can De
brought 10 the support of divorce re-
form. II that result Is accomplished, the
intrepid charge on Roberts OF Utah VIII
have more far-rcaching results than It's
promoters have realized
The Boston Herald takes up the dues-
ton Of the Utah Congressman at con-
siderable length. From It's editorial on
the subject We make the following ex-
cerpts:
"The United states made 1t stipula-
ton precedent 10 the admission Of titan
into the Union that she should abolish
nolygamy She dld so, and, II she per-
mlts polygamy after having accepted
her place as a State she is violating her
pledge. Here occurred dilemma, now
ever. There were several men In Utah
who had taken TO themselves plu-
rality OF wives under the old law and
the question arose what should be the
course pursued toward them. II was
a simple thing 20 repudiate all these
wives but one, and We think that would
have been the action OF a thoroughly
heartless and bad man. But there were
those-and Mr. Roberts was one OF
them-who recognized obligations TO
these women. He had made a contract
with them, and he was disposed 10
carry II QUITO continue In their sup
port. rather than 20 throw them I'M
supported upon the world. He could
not detain them against their VIII. II
was easy for them 10 appeal TO the law
for their freedom from him II they
wished IT, But they did not wish IT,.
They preferred to remain, and Mr..
Roberts recognized It as a duty to con-
tinue to support them.
But We shall be asked, should poly
gamy under any conditions have been
Nsrmi.ted In Utah after its admission
into the Union? Strictly speaking, II
should not have been. The people Of
Utah, however, seem 20 have recog-
nzed that It's immediate removal would
create cases OF hardship such as have
been instanced above and, therefore
they decided not 10 press the law into
immediate operation II is thus that
Mr. Roberts and some others are sim
left with plural wives. No new in
stances VI such marriage are allowed;
nobody apprehends that pOlygamy is to
be continued; the understanding Is that
the institution is dying out and that
| this practice Is continued 10 prevent
hardships 10 the weaker parties in the
case that might otherwise be incurred.
But IN any event. suppose II be
granted that the excuses for the action
" MIR Roberts that We have cited are
insufficient and polygamy in Utah In
| its dccadence Is still so odlous as not
TO be tolerated the fact remains that
II Is questionable II II IS IN the province
| OF the United States House OF Repre-
sentatiyes 10 interfere with II In this
way. II Is the State law Of Utah. not
the United States law that forblds
p0lygamy II polygamy IL TO be
| stamped out in Utah It must be done
by the State itself Congress. as the
legislative body Of the nation. may APP
peal 10 the State % enforce It's laws:
the point may even be raised that. In
not complying with the pledges under
which she entered the Union, the State
has rendered herself liable 10 become
the subject Of legal proceedings against
her on the part OF the United States:
but this is a different affair from one
branch OF the National Congress refus-
Inc % admit q legally chosen member
into It's association. The proper appeal,
II strikes US. is TO be made to Utah.
not 20 the National House OF Repre-
sentatiyes
"The qualifications necessary 20 en-
title "a man 90 become a member OF the
National House Of Representatives are
simple. They are. first an election 20
70, and the certificate " an election Is
conclusive evidence on this point. II the
seat Is not disputed Next the constltu-
tlon declares that no person STALL be a
representative who shall not have at
tained the age OF twenty-five years and
been seven years a citizen Of the United
states, and who shall not, when elect
cd, Zoe an inhabitant OF the state In
which he shall be- chosen. This is an.
We 90 not See how Mr.. Roberts can
De- excluded from taking his seat while
he has complied with these provisions.
Tie may later be expelled from Il BY
two-thirds vote Of its members, but
under the circumstances this extreme
action impresses US as % doubtful JUS
tice or eXpeliency. II the object Is 10
nut an end 10 the feeble practice Of
polyeamy yet remaining In Utah. Il
would better We think. be achieved by
more direct national action"