Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-01-04
M|LUGAN. Nlk|N I CO.
1888, 114O& i142 MlRKET ST.
polygamist, refuses to make a con-

tGoI.
The constitutional expression that
more properly applies to Mr.. Roberts
case is that which says that each House
may punish it's members for disorder
ly behavior, and, with the concurrence
of two-t thirds, expel member" (Cla Sc
2, Sec. 5, Art. -
The latitude given Congress under
this rule by the Supreme Court and
commentators generally is wide and
far reaching For disorderly conduct
during a session a member may be i'm
prisoneE during the term of Congress.
For disorderly conduct while not en-
gagged in his duties, nor during the ses-
sions, member may be punished even
by expulsion and impeachment.
In the British House of Commons ex-
pulsion may be for anything which seems
to satisfy its members, but with us the
cases at hand seem to be based upon acts
some external from their legislative du-
ties-which would affect the members leg
islative capacity, by discrediting his hon
esty and fidelity to the government.
How Mr.. Robertss several wives will be
regarded as affecting his rights or ca
pacity as a legislator is a question.
49,
1t seems doubtful that Congress will
make precedent in this particular case.
We have such cosmopolitan population
that we should not be surprised concern
mo +ho ri of Of officials
We have had them and will have them of
all sorts of colors, nationality creeds,
views and conditions, and we are still do
ing business at the old stand. If some
thing does not interfere to check our pres
ent tendency, we may expect bewildering
curosities to turn up that will force the
Roberts case into oblivion. We are be-
coming asvast chronological museum What
will we think when Senator Anthro-
phopogi, head hunter from the Philip
pines, arrives in Washington City with his
war club, his commission and his forty
seven wives, each legal wife by virtue
of the fact that for each one, he has lop-
ped off the head of some dusky American
citizen?
1t is said in defense of Mr.. Roberts that
ed while Utah was still a territory. I'm
der the State constitution of 1896 under
which Utah was admitted, it was provided
that ''polygamous or plural marriages are
forever prohibited" 1t id not annul
those already existing Viewed in this
light. it is asserted that Mr.. Robertss
marriages being legal at the time of their
consumma ton. cannot be affected or used
as a bar against him now. 1t is further
intimated that Mr.. Roberts's relations to
his polygamous wives are, that they bear
his name and that he supports them.
Since the prohibition of polygamy it is
said that he has married again-making a
total of four wives. In spite of the fact
that polygamy seems to be sanctioned by
nearly all the religions of the world, our
laws have wisely declared it inconsistent
with the moral welfare of society 1t is a
crime now, just as celibacy was a crime
under the Julian laws of Augustus, both
tending by example, to immortality.
49,
There are other crimes, however, that
perhaps are a trife worse than polygamy,
and it would seem that it might be some
comfort to many apparently respectable
persons-statesmen and members of pro-
LESSONS not exempted-if they could at
certain distressing times advance the
doubtful plea of polygamy as sort Of
mitigation for their conduct.
This condition must be appalling in
washington if we are to believe Col.
Breckenridge, and the conclusion is, that
it is very unlikely that Mr.. Roberts's
presence will he.ghten the color of the at
mosphere there.
Suppose in the investigation of Mr.. Rob-
erts's right TO hold his seat, some one
would read from the eighth chapter of
John, saying-'He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone"
Who would fling the first brick?
RARQN HOMES