Evening star., 1899-01-03

| his conviction and since the issuance OF
| the amnesty proclamation, thus forfeiting
| the pardon. which was restricted to those
| who, since November /. 1890, have alb
| stained from such unlawful cohabitation -
etc.
Interest is attracted to the proceedings
OF the convention at which the state con-
stitutfon was framed. Mr.. Roberts was a
delegate and took part in the discussion
which bears now upon his case. Statehood
was conferred on Utah January /, 1896.
IN May, 1898, the constitutional convention
very neatly lodged the question, says the
New York World. The territorial law in
force at the time was identical with the
Edmunds-Tucker law. 1t punished both
polygamy and unlawful coha bitat ton.
BeheVing that the state law would super
seoe the territorial law. the polygamy PEN
atty was adopted, but the unlawful cohabi-
tation part of the act was dropped.
Roberts Against Cohnbftatfon.
l. c. 8. Varian, formerly United States dis
trict attorney, asked for the adoption Of
the unlawful cohabitation penalty, and B.
H. Roberts. arguing in support of Mr. Va
rian, said:
Il am in favor of adopting the amend
ment offered by the gentleman from Salt
Lake, that 1t may appear, without any
equlvocation whatever, that in absolute
good faith the people of Utah intend to
carry out the condition upon which state
hood Is to be granted to the territory.
We ought to establish beyond all ques-
ton the fact that we intend to carry out
to the letter our agreement as expressed in
the compact with the United States.''
The amendment was not adopted, con-
tinues the World, and the unlawful cohabi-
tation penalty does not appear in the con-
stitution. 1t was later held by the Supreme
Court that the territorial law, which did
punish the Offense, was not superseded by
the state law, and that it is now in force.
1t will be shown that Roberts did not keep
the pledge he made, but, on the contrary,
violated it by living in unlawful relations
with three or more women who pose as
his wives. A failure to keep the pledge
makes his disfranchisement continuous to
this time.
Ex-senator Edmunds. whose name has
been given to one of the anti-poly gamy
statutes which is now in evidence recent
ly wrote letter on the Roberts case as
follows:
In my opinion the government of the
United States has no constitutional power
to suppress poiygamy in a state. Atten-
ton was called to this before Utah was
admitted, but Congress chose to admit the
state notwithstanding.
1t Is within the legal power of Utah,
and every other state, to make polyga-
my lawful, if it chooses. think the House
of Representatives cannot constitutionally
refuse seat to regularly elected polyg-
amist from any state. The House of Rep
resentatves, like other bodies of that char
acter, may be "a law unto itself, and vio-
late the Constitution, which fixes the quail
fications of members, to seat, or refuse to
seat, Whomsoever it pleases, with or with
out just reason; but this would be d dam
gerouS course and practice
The House of Representatives has the
constitutional power, by vote Of two
thirds, to expel a member for any cause
that it thinks just.
This view has aroused much controver-
sial comment from many quarters.
A Contest for the Seat.
The political phase of the case keeps
pace with the moral and legal phases.
Warren Foster, the political opponent of
Roberts in the late campaign, has an
nounced his determination to contest the
seat on the ground of disqualification. Fos-
ter was the populst candidate His attor-
ney has issued statement stating that the
objection to Roberts is based on two
grounds. First, that his election was in
violation of the Edmunds law, which pro-
hibits polygamist or bigamist from voting
or holding any office under the United
States and applies to congressman. Sec
ond, that Mr.. Roberts is not citizen of the
United States within the meaning of the
Constitution requiring representatives to
be such citizens. The attorney goes over
the ground of the amnesty proclamation
and Roberts failure to accept its terms
and continues:
Since the opposition to Mr.. Roberts is
based upon his incapacity to receive the
Office it is believed his name should be kept
OIL tne roli Oh members untll the question
is decided and then it will only take
majority vote to keep him off. Roberts
certificate of election carries with it pre-
sumption of his being legally elected, but
in face of the objections to his qualification
there Is no presumption in his favor be-
cause the governor has no right to deter
mine that question. If Congress shall find
Roberts is not disqualified under the Ed
munds laws and that he is citizen of the
United States within the meaning of the
constitution. then 1T NAV still eXDel him
by two-thrds vote, because he will at
all times be polygamst, within the def
milton of the Supreme Court of the United
States, even though he leaves his wives
in Utah.
The Three Mrs. Roberts.