Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-12-19
A PREVALENT MISTAKE,

4
I'm the United States, the possession
/ OF more than one wife disqualilies u
man to slt In Congress"
so II seems ~ US that the Roberts
case Is simply a question as 10 whether
or not he Is a polygamlst II he Is the
chances are he VIII not be seated II
he Is not he will be seated Certainly
nobody can object 10 this unless IL be
some one who insists that polygamy is
not an oifense against the laws Of the
United States"
We have copied these sentences from
a long editorial in the Idaho Enterprise
There are other papers that seem to be
fair In their discussion Of this case
which are in similar error Every editor
ought to learn, II he does not know
that there Is no provision in the constl-
tuition or the laws Of the United states,
which Inequalities a man elected to rep
resent a sovereign State. from sitting
IN Congress because OF his possession
Of more than one wife. He should also
understand that "poygamy is not an
offense against the laws Of the United
states" In any State Of the Onion.
The acts Of Congress In reference to
that subject, were passed to be opera
tive In any Territory or other place over
which the United States exercised ex-
elusive jurisdiction. They never applied
or were intended 10 apply to a State.
They have no force now in Utah. be-
cause she Is state Of the Union on an
equal footing with every other state.
They dlsfranchised polygamists in Ter
ritorles, but when the Enabling Act was
passed for Utah. that disability was
removed. Utah was required to insert
a proyiso in her Constitution prohibit
ing further plural marriages. But she
was not required to make any restric-
tive provisions concerning the elective
franchise or the right to hold Office.
The possession OF more than one wife
is obnoxious to the majority Of the peo-
pie of the United States. no doubt
But public opinion Is not law until It
Is formulated into a duly enacted sta
tute. There is no such enactment Gs
that imagined by the Enterprise, If
there was anything Of the kind exist
ing when the Representative from Utah
presented himself in the House, there
would have been no need FOR the unpre-
cedented, revolutionary and hasty ac.
ton. to prevent his taking the seat to
which he was elected He had exactly
the same right before the law to be
sworn in as any other member-elect
who took the oath Of Office.
These are simple matters Of fact and
Of law. Our contemporaries who do not
so understand them can verify them
with but little trouble II they still
persist In their incorrect notions, let
them produce the law or rule which
jsqualihes the possessor Of more than
one wife to sit in Congress, and also
the statute that makes polygamy, In
any State Of the Union. IAN offense
against the laws OF the United States"
THE chances are" that the Member
from Utah will not be seated But
that will be. not because there is any
law to shut him out but because men
who have taken a solemn oath to sup
port the Constitution and laws OF the
United states. think more Of the threat
ening lash Of public opinion, than Of
that solemn obligation and the dictates
OF sacred justice The demands Of the
churches, backed by the uproar Of lg-
norant muldtudes. have risen above the
majesty Of the law, and thus mob rule
with religious dictation hold sway to-
day in the exalted precincts of the
American Congress.