Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-01-28

an pQual 1OOlllS Will SltlliidhNS'
ROBERTS "PLURAL MARRIAGES.
The constitution of Utah only prohlb-
it's the ceremony of making a
Gus or plural marriage. 1t does not pro-
hibit the carrying on of p~olygamous reid-
tons. Nor do her laws go any further,
so far as ! can ascertain. In fact she Is,
as | have said, absolutely Independent OF
congress in respect of the subject, ana
she appears. from all reports, to pc
steadily taking advantage OF her oppoi-
tunities, and has, if reports are true, De
liberately elected to congress a person IN
the open and notorious practice OF polyS-
amy. l am not informed at what time
these alleged ~polygamous marriages took
place, nor is this material TO the question:.
If they took place before the state was
admitted. Mr.. Roberts could have been
punished by the authorities of the United
States. But he can not be now. The acts
of congress while they punish blta-
ton with plural wives did not punish
those who had been in the practice of po-
lygamy for supporting those who had
been their unlawful wives; but they did
provide for Furnishing a continuance Oh
the polygamous relation. If Mr.. Rob-
erts' ~poIysamous marriage took place af-
ter the state was admitted, he would be
guilty Of violating the state law in con-
tracing such marriages, but he would
not be guilty of violating any state law
in living as a husband with all his plural
wives for, SO far as | 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 government, executive and Judicial,
willing and desir0us to execute the law
and bring offenders to punishment. 1t
would seem clear from what has trans
pired, that the government of Utah has
no disposition to proceed in that direc-
ton.
HIS RIGHT OF ADMISSION.
In this state of things, o ask: What
can the house of representatives do in
the case of Mr.. Roberts? The constitu-
ton of the United States provides that
the house of representatives shall be the
judge of the election and qualifications Of
its members. The power to judge of the
election is merely the power to ASCERTAIN
whether a majority of the legal voters
have in the manner provided by law
voted for the member, and that is all.
The qualifications of the member are
three. He must be twenty-five years of
age; he must have been seven years a
citizen of the United States; he must
rave been at the time Of his election an
inhabitant of the state. OF these three
requisites the house is the judge. If he
possesses these, the house has, in my
opinion, nc lawful power to apply any
other or further test in respect of his be-
ing admitted to a seat. 1t would be ex-
tremely dangerous for a constitution to
give a majority of a house the right to
determine what particular sort of a man
the people of a state should have the
right to elect to represent them further
than our constitution has declared.
HOW HE MAY BE EXPELLED.
This is too obvious to require illustra-
ton. But when a man SO elected and
possessing the qualifications required by
the constitution has once taken his seat,
the constitution brings into play another
and entirely different provision, author
izing the house, with the concurrence Of
tWo-thlrds, to eXpel a member Upon
the exercise of This right. the constitution
wisely imposed no limitation except that
of requiring the concurrence of two
thirds to expel. If, therefore, the house
Of representatives shall find on due in
CURRY that Mr.. Roberts is an open, prac-
teal and persistent ~polygamist, and the
house thinks that in view of that fact,
and IN connection with the circumstance
under which Utah was admitted, or with
out reference to those circumstances, it
Will be q reprOach to it's dignity and good
name to continue Mr.. Roberts as a men,
Der, 1t may lawfully and rightfully eX-
pei him, If it does not act at all (suppos-
ing the facts to be as stated, it will have
given its acquiescent approval of the
conduct of Mr.. Roberts, and of the action
of the people who elected him with full
knowledge of the circumstances, and
henceforth it will be justly considered
that the house has no disposition to in
~terfere with the practice of polygamy in
Utah. If it does act, an dexpel the mem
Der, it will nave declared against the
perpetuation of that system.
Utah being now a sovereign state, with