The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-11
Revolving the Constitution OF Utah.

The controversy concerning the eligibility
OF BRIGHAM II. ROBERTS OF Utah to MEN,
bership in the House Of Representatives has
developed some queer notions concerning
tho relation between the State OF Utah and
the United States 1t is said that Utah has
violated her compact with the United States,
not to permit polygamy within her borders.
and hence that Congress may rightfully re-
fuse admission to her Senators and Repre-
sentatives.
Tho act to enable the people OF Utah TO
form Constitution and State Government
and to be admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original States was
approved by the President on July 10, 1 94.
It commanded the Constitutional Conven-
ton to provide. by ordinance irrevocable
without the consent Of the United States
and the people OF the new State, that
perfect liberation OF religious sentiment
shall he secured and that no inhabtant OF
said State shall ever be molested In person
or property on account OF his or her mode
OF religious worship Propided, That polyga-
nous or plural marriages are forever pro-
hibited."
This command was strictly obeyed by
Constitution OF the State Of Utah sets forth
an ordinance which is declared to be irrcv-
ocablc without the consent OF the United
States and the people Of Utah. and 1t
contains these words
Perfect federation OF religious sentiment Ia guar
antecd. No inhAbitant OF this State shall DO
molested In person property account OF his
her mode Of religious worship; but po'podmous or
81 1.aan n LIN md
The Constitution was adopted by popu-
lar vote OF ~. 3O5 against 1887 on No
vembcr 3, 1895, and the proclamation OF
the President announcing the result and
admitting Utah into the Union was issued
on January 4, 1896.
The Constitution OF Utah contained an
other provision concerning polygamy, in
addition TO that already quoted from the
irrevocable ordinance. In Section OF
Article XIV. we find the following:
"All laws OF the Territory of Utah. now in force.
not repuRnant TO this Constitution shall remain in
force until they expire by their own limitations. or
are altered repealed by tho Legislature. The act
OF the Governor and Legislative Assembly OF tho
Territory OF Utah, entitled An Act to Punish
Polygamy and Other Kindred Offences, approved
Feb "a d. 1922. in so far As the same defines and
imposes penalties Tor poygtmy ~ hereby declared
to DO in force in the State OF Utah"
Thisterritoral statute Of s92 prohibited
not only polygamy. but also cohabitation
with more than one woman. Whether that
part OF the act forbidding unlawful cohabi-
tation Is continued in force by the State
Constitution seems very doubtful; but that
polygamous or plural marriages have been
forbidden by law In Utah since the enact
ment OF this statute and are now pro-
hibited by the Constitution OF Utah Is as
plain as pikcstafr,
All that the new State undertook to do In
respect to poygamy was to prohibit 1t
forever. The people have adopted Con-
stitution containing double prohibition.
The fact that they have not been uniformly
successful in enforcing 1t, confers no right
upon tho National Government to deny to
Utah the privileges Of State. Indeed
there are some constitutional obligations
which a State cannot be compelled to
comply with. The States are required to
surrender fugitives from justice from an
other State. yet there Is no way OF en-
forcing this command In the event OF
refusal In the case OF Utah, however. the
new State appears to have done all she
promised the other States, 81 that the talk
about an unfulhlled compact has no basis
In fact.
Whatever happens as result OF the
Roberts case, and that the extraordinary
temper with which the House OF Repre-
sentatves has taken it up makes 1t easy to
foretell. there Is no need to fear that Utah
will be read out OF tho Union.