The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-22
EDMUNDS ON POLYGAMY
VIEWS OF vERMONT's EX-SENATOR
ON THE CASE OF DIR. ROBERTS.
The Author OF the Anti-POIysamy Act
House Can settle the Matter.

anOus congressman-el from Utah.
which will he read with widespread inter-
est. Senator Edmunds's conclusions win
probably influence Congress in determining
the course to be pursued in this remarkable
case. His letter is as follows:
To the Editor Of the Christian Herald:
Dear Sir-Your recent letter asking such
explanation as / may be able TO give touch
ing the case of Mr.. Roberts recently elected
70 Congress from the STATE of Utah, was
duly received.
It is now just fifty years since the Nor
mon political hierarchy was established in
~ tan. II became an organized Territory OF
the united states in 1850, and seven years
thereafter large military force was re-
CURED 10 induce the Mormon territorial
government and officers to obey the laws
or the United States. From that time on
ward, until the passage of the act of Con-
gress Of March o. 1882, the political
hierarchy under the form OF territorial self
government, grew stronger and stronger,
and polygamy had become an established
and strong and growing institution in spite
OF the Iact that ever since 1862 there had
been in force an act of Congress making
bigamy In that Territory, as well as others,
o crime, and providing for it's punishment.
But, SO far as I am Informed, the act has
remained almost dead letter, and natural
ly so, because, substantially. all the ma
chinery Of administering justice was under
the control either affirmatively or mega
lively, Of the hierarchy. The act Of 1882
undertook to reform the methods of adj
mtnisterfng justice and to provide means
for bringing to punishment persons guilty
OF polygamOus practices under whatever
name they might exist. The act also pro-
Vides for excluding from suffrage and from
official employment that class Of criminals
A the fIme it was under discussion, 1t was
stated by those having the bill in charge
that further measures would be brought to
the attention Of Congress as might appear
expedient And accordingly, Congress passed
a supplemental act on the Sd of March,
1887, IN which II provided, among other
things, for annulling the territorial law OF
Utah, under which Legitimate children in
herited the name as legitimate ones.
In consequence of these laws the instltu-
ton Of polygamy greatly declined, and there
appeared reason for believing that in a few
years this blot upon our civilization would
entirely disappear The hierarchy, however
still continued to control the majority of
the voters in the territory. and it was
thought unsafe to admit Utah as a State
until there should be a decided gentle ma
Jority of voters there. But the determina-
tion of the hierarchy was continuous, and
Sts efforts for admission persistent, until
finally Congress was persuaded to pass the
act of July 10, 1884, authorizing the people
of Utah to form a state Constitution and to
be admitted.
UTAHS STATEHOOD CONDITIONS.
It is generally known that this was accom-
plished by inducing Congress to believe
that the claim of the hierarchy that polyg-
amy was a divine institution. and a part
OF the Mormon religion had been abandoned,
and that its practice had substantially
ceased, and, therefore, that Utah ought to
be admitted as a State. The only condition
IN the enabling act was that the Utah con-
stitutional convention should provide by an
ordinance irrevocable without the consent
of the United States and the people of Utah,
that while religious liberty should be sacred,
"Polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited" The constitutional convention,
held pursuant to this act adopted an ordi-
nance in the very words of the requirement
] have quoted, and the convention made all
the territorial laws of Utah then in force
q part of the State law. But in respect of
the territorial act of the 4th of February,
1892 defining and furnishing polygamy, etc,
the convention adopted that act only so far
as 1t applied to polygamous marriages. the
effect of which was, following the very
words of the act of Congress to punish only
the crime of contracting a polygamous or
plural marriage, the proof of which, owing
TO the peculiar methods of the hierarchy it
had been found almost impossible to make
in prosecutions under the acts of Congress.
This difficulty had led Congress in the acts
] have referred to, to reach the evil by
providing for the punishment or unlawful
cohabitation.
Since the admission of the State, which
was completed by the Presidents proclama-
tion of the 4th of January 1896, have never
heard of any state prosecution in respect
of any of the acts related to the subject,
and 1t IS we'll understood that the Mormon
hierarchy is in just as complete possession
or the State in all respects as 1t was be-
fore the acts of Congress passed in 1882 and
1881 This domination is not confined to
matters of religious belief or worship. but
extends to all the civil and political opera
tions Of the State-a concentration of power
1n a few hands which is perhaps without a
parallel in any government having a writ
ten constitution and protesting to be
government Of the people.
UTAHS BAD FAITH.
1t is now evident enough that Congress
was mistaken when it passed the enabling
set in supposing that polygamous notions
had disappeared and that the State would
60 on in the same way as other States Con-
gress also must have overlooked the fact
that any engagements on the part of the
State of Utah as a condition of it's admis-
sion to the Union relating to the administra-
ton of its internal affairs would not be
binding in point of law and could only bind
the faith of the state government. for a
breach Of which the only redress must be
inc forcible overturning of the state govern
ment, which would be simply war. The in
slant the State was admitted every act
OF congress relating to its internal policy
ceased 10 nave any force whatever. The
consequence is that in point Of law the
state of Utah has the same SOVEREIGN
rights that any other State has She may
punish polygamy or unlawful coha bitation
or she may authorize it. She NAV declare
as Congress had done that iiIeeitiTnate hi
ofen snail not inherit or she may declare
as she appears to have done since her adj
mission, that ilegitimate children shall in
MERIT on an equal footing with legitimates.
ROBERTS'S PLURAL MARRIAGES.
9AA1 -pAASbAtUAiNn Ol Oldu only prohibits
the ceremony of making a polygamous or
plural marriage 1t does not prohibit the
carrying on of polygamous relations Nor
do her laws so any further, so far as 1 can
ascertain. In fact she is, as l have said
absolutely Independent of Congress in re-
spect of the subject, and she appears, from
all reports, TO be steadily taking advantage
of her opportunities, and has, if reports are
true, deliberately elected to Congress a per
son in the open and notorious practice Of
polygamy. I am not informed at what
time these alleged polygamous marriages
took place nor is this material to the ques-
ton If they took place before the State
was admitted Mr.. Roberts could have been
punished by the authorities of the United
States But he cannot be now. The acts
OF Congress. while they punish cohabitation
with plural wives did NOT punish and were
IN the practice Of polygamy for supporting
but they did provide for furnishing a con-
tnuance OF the polygamous relation. II Mr.
Roberts's polygamous marriages took place
after the State was admitted he would be
guilty Of violating the State law in con-
tracing such marriages, but he would not
Dc guilty Of violating any State law ia Iiv-
ing as a husband with all his plural wives
Tor, so far as I am informed. there is no
such law Of Utah. In any case, as is true
everywhere, statutes restraining crime are
OF no value unless there be a state of gov