The San Francisco call., 1899-12-09

by him. but because of his criminal practices
NEITHER is this matter Of religious or poilti,
cal persecution prejudice. The undersigned
include men Of different churches and men who
belong TO no church. those who are Republicans
and those who are Democrats.
Mr. Roberts denies. and we assert, that the
compact between Utah and the other states
las been violated That compact was evi-
denced by many public acts. as follows:
First - BY the manifesto Of the Mormon
church In 1880. which by their leading men
was interpreted under oath 70 prohibit the
continue nee Of polysamous relations as well as
the contracting OF new polygamous marriages
Secondly the Utah Legislature. which In
1897 made unlawful cohabitation- as well as
polyEany crime against the Territory.
1hirc-By the solemn pledges Of the apostles
o. this alleged church that these laws would
be obsyed ana enforced which pledge was made
In ?et,t!on TO the President praying for a
general amnesty proclamation.
Fourth-By the declarations made by the citi-
zens o. Utah before the Congressional commit
tee having the enabling act under considera-
uon. where also the foregoing evidences and
statements were used 10 secure statehood.
F1fth-By the declaration IN the constitution
forever prohibited
Slxth-The act Of the Constitutional Conven.
ton continuing IN force the Territorial laws
prnishins unlawful cohabitaton as well as
polygamy. Of which convention Mr. Roberts
was mer'ber.
All these public acts combined show conclus-
lively that the compact includes the discontinu-
ence OF old polygamous relations as we'll the
prevention OF new ones AS evidence that this
compact has been broken we point TO the fol-
First-That in Utah 1900 illegitimate children
nave been born TO polygamous wives since
second-That about 2ooO polygamous house
holds now exist in Utah. and that the attempt
10 secure punishment Of these offenders is
qe--9unced Gs by the majority. as we believe. OF
Third-Thst the circumstantial evidence un-
mistakably points 10 the existence of new wives
in poiygamous households, the most conspicu-
Gus examples Of which are the cases - Apostles
Abraham h Cannon John W. tsylor and
apostle TueSdalP NJ asf f-et - ,,-bg,
the church organ Of the dominant church re-
iuses 10 deny the marriage and the new poly
% %amous wife is employed as a teacher in
Fourth-That the very men who INTERPRETED
the manifesto of 1890 to prohibit unlawful CO.
led manitsuoh win prior acquired wives pub
hclX Justify its continuance
Flth-Ihat most OF the same men who In
petition for amnesty pledged their sacred
people are now by example and precept en-
couraging the commission Of the crime OF un-
lawful cohabitaton
siNth-As further evidence of this bad faith
we can attention to the fact that the men
holding church offices have pleaded guilty IN
the crime OF unlawful cohabitation before the
state courts without having their church stand
Ing anected. even in some cases having their
hnes paid by sympathetic friends
seventh-All this is by necessary Implication
lndorsed by a majority OF Utah's people in the
election OF Brigham H Roberts who during
his campaign for election was publicly charged
with being violator OF the laws as evidenced
by his illegtimate progeny. and in spite Of
these undenied charges he was elected by an
overwhelming majority.
That Mr.. Roberts himself understood that
compact 10 mean the discontinuance OF unlaw-
ful cohabitation point to his registration
oath OF 1873. In which he swore II to be his
intention to obey the law prohibiting unlawful
cOhabitation.
T. c. ILIFF. Salt Lake.
G. W. MARTIN. Manti. Utah
c. NJ. OWEN Salt Lake
j. NJ CooMBs. brigham City. Utah
A T. SCHROEDER, Salt Lake