The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-02-27
DISTINGUISHED VIEWS.


brief statement of the law governing
the case of Congressman Roberts, The
Herald has already given the views of
eminent authorities and offered com
ments on the same. AS this is mat
( ter of considerable interest to the peo-
pie of Utah, and as the 4th of March
is rapidly approaching, everything
tending to throw light upon the legal
status of the case is eagerly sought
by those opposing, as well as by those
favoring the seating of Utah's chosen
representative.
The Washington Post has discussed
the matter at different times and has
opened its columns to many contribu-
lions from both sides In a recent edi-
torial it says:
The oath of office which a congress
man is required to take is provided for
in the third clause of the sixth article
of the constitution of the United States.
thus: The senators and representa-
tives before mentioned shall
be bound by oath or affirmation to sup
port this constitution Inasmuch as
that constitution does not in any man
ner, directly or Indirectly, touch the
charge preferred against the Utah con-
gressman-elect, it is highly improbable
that he is giving himself much mental
distress about taking the oath.
IF it be true, as it doubtless is, that
he is openly supporting the practice
which for years kept Utah out of the
Union it does not by any means fol-
low that he is violating any law of
congress or of the state of Utah. The
Edmunds act ceased to have any APP
plication- to Utah as soon as she came
into the Union. The constitution Of
the state prohibits the contamination
of 'polygamous or plural marriages.,
but all of the marriages of Roberts
were consummated prior to the adop-
ton of that instrument. He is, there
fore. as free TO take the oath of office
as any representative-elect who will
join him in that ceremony.
when this celebrated case was first
launched upon the troubled waters of
religious, moral, political and legal ag-
itation, the Post advised all the num-
berless organizations and individuals
who protested against the admission of
Roberts that he must be admitted; that
he could not be unseated by majority
vote on the ground of fraud or irreg
ularity; that the only way to get him
out was expulsion. requiring a two
thirds vote. Some of our contempo-
raries took issue with that frank state
ment of the situation. But every word
of it stands confirmed by the opinions
of the ablest jurists, and some of them
go so far as to assert that the expul-
sion of the Utah representative would
be a fragrant violation of the constitu-
ton. There are many lawyers of high
standing who do not hesitate to say
that any state might change it's con-
stitutiOn so as to legalize polygamy, |
and still retain its right to representa-
ton in congress and all other rights /!
pertaining to a member of the family |
of states. The Post has no apprehen- |
sion of such action in Utah or in any
other state. 1t has firm faith in the /
capacity OF mOnogamy, not only to hold |
its own, but to speedily extinguish the /
remnants of polygamy. Our |
civilization is not failure. It moves |
not backward. This is proven |
by the great uprising of religious
bodies in protest against the seating of
a polygamist in the house. A few years
age polygamist sat in that house for
a number Of terms as delegate from
Utah, and there was scarcely a muir
muir of disapproval."
This opinion is reproduced and given
for what it is worth. 1t appears to be
a very sensible view of the matter and
it certainly comes from disinterested
source.