Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-11-24
The Utah Representative-Eleet Ez-
poets His Seat.
His CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
The Legality of His Election Be-
yond Question.
n . L A w VIO L A T E d

ton and is located at the Metropolitan Ho-
tel. Mr.. Roberts came unaccompanied by
any female member of his family but ex-
poets his grown daughter to arrive today
who will spend the winter with him. In
an interview with Star reporter today Mr..
Roberts was asked whether he expected to
retain his seat in Congress. He answered,
verbatim, follows:
Il have no doubt of retaining my seat
The legality of my election is beyond all
question. 1 possess all the constitutional
qualifications and l am unconvicted of any
crime. l am not even charged with any Of
fense against the laws of my state which
Guild constitute a sufficient offense for my
expulsion.
The amnesty proc!amatons of Presi-
dents Harrison and Cleveland undoubtedly
covered my case. as 1 obeyed the law /
in August, 1895, and have strictly observed
Its conditions. That was after the consti-
tutional convention had met and framed
the state constitution and 1t was then be-
fore the people for adoption in the fall of
1898.
The United States law requiring that
oath expired by limitation on the adrais-
sion of Utah to the Union five months after
ward, and since that time we have been
living under the constitution and laws of
the state of Utah The expiration by lin
Hatlon or the United States laws is the
part that has not yet been stated"
Not I'm Violation of Law.
DO you hold" Mr. Roberts was asked
that the fulfllment OF marital obligations
incurred prior to the admission Of the state
Is not IN violation of the compact with the
United States?"
Most emphatically do" he replied, be
cause the constitutional convention care
avoided nf
Vhlch would have made such fulfillment a
violation of the contract.
The settlement of the question of polyg-
amy by the adoption of the state constitn-
ton and the admission of the state into the
Union was upon this basis the demand on
the part OF the people of the United States
as expressed by their representatives in
the passage of the Utah enabling act was
that the constitutional convention of Utah
should provide by ordinance irreyocabIe
Wlthout the consent of the people of the
United states and state of Utah. that there
should be perfect liberation of religious
sentiment, providing that polygamy or
plural marriages are forever prohibited.'
mat was the demand Of the United
states upon the people of Utah. When the
constitutional convention came to deal with
this proposition we adopted the very lam
guage Of the enabling act. Toward the
close of the convention however there
We're some who entertained the opinion
that this declaration did not sufficiently
meet the demand, and 1t was thought that
something more definite should be put into
the constitution. The legislature of the
territory of Utah in 1872 passed a law
which. insofar as defining the crime Of
polygamy and Of unlawful cohabitation
.wnich Is living living In polygamous relations
AFTER the Illegal marriage) paralleled the
congressional enactment on the same sub-
Ject. but no prosecutions were ever brought
under that law as all the prosecutions were
under the United States statutes
There was a clause Of the constitution
Which made all of the laws operative in
the territory also operative in the state
put there was a question in the minds of
lawyers as TO the validity of the terrific
rial law, and it was contended that the
general clause making the territorial laws
operative In the state would not make this
law against pOlygamy operative Indeed
tHe convention was persuaded that this
was the case.
Old Law Cut In Two.
Mr.. Varian, a Gentle member of the
convention and the last prosecuting attor-
ney for the territory of Utah, brought in q
resolution which cut that old territorial
law in two, and the part which defined the
crime of polygamy to be the marrvtng Of
other women while lawful wife was still
living punishable by fine of $500 and
five years imprisonment was made mart
of the constitution of the state, while the
part of the law which defined unlawful CO.
stttution.
During the debate on the proposition
the question was asked DIR. Varian if by
discarding that part Of the law it would
not be interpreted to mean that If II was
valid law the intention of his act was to
repeal. To this he replied that such would
be clearly the implication, and stated as
his reason for emitting the unlawful CO.
hao1tat1on part of the statute that there
was nothing in the enabling act which re-
quired the passage of that part of the law
relating to unlawful cohabitation, as the
only demand on the part of the people of
arrjae
should for the future be prohibited
Ihis settlement of the question, 1t will
be observed. did not require the disruption
OF those relations which had grown out of
the Mormon system of plural marriages in
the past 1t was merely demanded that
the fountain of the alleged evil should be
dried up, and that settlement of the ulleS-
ton was accepted by the people of Utah
by voting for tn constitution, and was
accepted by the United States by the ad-
mission of the state into the Union. and, in
deed, was 1t not a statesman-like settle
ment of the question?
Relations Regarded as Sacred.
Here was system of social life which
had obtained for half a century in Utah.
and however wrong 1t may have been es-
teemed by the people of the United States.
there Is no question but what its relations
were regarded sacred by the Mormon
people. They found themselves involved in
moral obligations of which they certainly
Oouiu iiol uiseSt themselves ana remain at
peace with their consciences.
What good could come, either to morals
or religion, of disrupting those relation
ships which had been formed? What
Christian home in the east would be made
more secure In it's purity by DESTROYING the
homes of these plural wives, whose accept
ance of the Mormon marriage system had
been based upon the conviction that il was
right and was In conformity with the moral
ideas OF the community in which they
lived?
II affirm most positively that the state of
Utah has adhered to the settlement of this
question. In other words, that there have
been no plural marriages since the admis-
sion of Utah, or indeed, since 1880. when
the church officially announced the discon-
tinuanoe of the plural marriage system.
There is no disposition or desire to be un-
| faithful to the compact with the govern
ment The representative from Utah has
| not violated that compact, but as he took
| somewhat prominent part ii framing it,
| so everywhere and at all times he has held
| that it would be strictly observed
After the settlement of this question as
| above outlined it was quite generally sun
posed that there was no law in the state
| which forbade men fulfilling their maria ee
y