Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-11-23
RATIONAL OPINIONS.

over tho Domocrauc choice of Congrc'i-
man FOR Utah. The Springfield Reprbli-
can. of Nov. IS. ihoughifuly argues:
ut IL very doubtful II the Influence o.
Mr. Roberts Of Utah. doplorablc as his
matrimonial status b., upon Inc homes
81 America, can b. rccknued MOTE bano-
fui than that OF people who jump rum
one counuhlai connection 10 another. BY
the DEGREES 81 court and clorEymeh.
with Ne complete facility na man
can change ears. SIT. Roberts was
brought up 10 regard polyglmy rs
sanctioned by religion. II u all wrong.
Of courrc. aud must b. condemned. The
Roberts system must be Suppressed. AZ
the same time. Roberts 10 no more ~
"a menace 10 society than the million
aires ~ New York who ECt secret al.
Vnrcra from the courts and then dciy
the DEGREES aunuilinE their marriages by
contracting new alliances. within twch-
ty.four hours in some other State,
"Rapid.nfc divorce. no a matter OF
fact Nv far more dangerous 60 the
American home than i,uhrtts with Ills
three wlyof could over be. That u be.
cause fnpid.nrr divorce has the veneer
~ legality and ~ not ffowned upon by
society because u r. inslnuaiinE anu
subtle In ~ attack upon domestic NOR.
atty. ~ IL to be- hoped that the force
~ The nntl.i,obefts movement can b.
brought 10 tho support Of divorce ~
form. W that result " accomplished, The
intrepid charge ON Roberts of Utah VIII
have more f1r-r,achinR results than IT.
promoters have realized
The Boston Hefaid takes W the qucs.
ton of the Utah Congressman at COM
siderable length. From IT, editorial on
tho subicc, We make the following cN-
ccrpts.
''rhe United states made u stipula-
tlon precedent e. the admission of Utah
into the Union that she should abolish
polygnmy She dld 90. ana. " she per.
mita polygumy after having accepted
her place Ms u state, she " violating her
pledge. Here occurred a dilemma. how
ever There wefe several men Ia Utah
rnlity OF wives under tho old law. and
the question arose what should be the
course pursued toward them. IL was
n simple thing To rcpudiatc all these
wives but one. and we think that would
have been III" action u "A thoroughly
heartlcan and bad man. But there were
those-und Mr. Roberts was on. Of
thom-who recognized obligations 10
these women. lie had made contract
with them, and he WA disposed to
carry u QUITO continue In their sup
port. rather than % throw them un.
supported upon the world. lie could
not dctnin them against their VIII. II
was easy Tor them a. appeal to the law
Tor their freedom from him II they
wished H. liut they dll not wish It.
They preferred 10 remain. AMI Mt.
Roberts recognized II ua a duty TO con.
tlnuc 60 support thum.
"liut. we shall be asked. should poly
gnmy under any conditions have been
Nffmi.tcd In Utah after IT. admission
into the Union? strictly speaking. II
should not have been. The noplr %
Utah, however. seem Co have rrcng.
ulxed TINT Ito immediate removal would
create eases 10 hardship such az have
been inHtauced above, and. therefore
they decided not tu press the law Into
immediate operation II iH thus thlt
Mr. Roberts and some others ate SIN
let with plural Wives No Now 90.
stances NJ such marriage Nru allowed,
nobody appfrhvuds that unlyrumy ~ %
BE continued; the understanding l. that
the inHiituu1n i1 dying out. ana that
THIS practice lH continued 60 prevent
hnrdnhlpH in tho wpnkcr parties In the
ease that might otherwise be- Incurred
"Hut, m any event, suppose u be-
granted that the excuses FOR the action
NJ Sir Roberts that We have cited are
insufficient, and pllyrnmy Ia Utah In
its docndencr IL SIN 10 0dlous az not
20 be- tolerated, the fact remains TINT
% the United States House of Repre-.
uentntiNos IN Interfere with II In thh
way n IL the state law ~ Utah. nui
the United States law. that forblds
p0lyFnmy n polyRamy IL TO be
stamped out In Utah Il must BE- done
by the State itself Congress, nH the
legislative body Of the nation. may np.
peal ~ the state 10 enforce H. laws.
the point may even Doe raised that. In
not complying with the pledges under
which uh" entered tho Union. the state
has rrudetcd herself liable TO become
the subject N legal Proceedings against
her on tho para NJ tho United states.
but this Is different nnair from ono
branch 81 The National Congress rcftis.
lnr IN admit legally chosen member
into lts association The proper appeal.
II strikes a.. iH To be made u Utah.
not o. the Nauonm House OF Repre-.
HrntntlVDH.
The qualifications necessary to On.
lltlr re- man 90 become "a member of the
National House Il Representatives arc
simple They are first. un election o.
20, AMI the rrrtinuute ~ un election Il
conclusive evidence ON this point. n tho
scat a. not disputed Next tho cunstltu.
ton declares that 'uu person STALL b. d
r'nit sentative ~ no shall not have at.
lninrd thr ngr of twenty-five ycaui and
been seven years % citizen M the United
states, ana who shall not. whom elect.
vl, Dc an iuhabitunt uf tho State In
which hc shah BE- chosen. This IL ali.
We du not H'o how Mt Roberts can
o. excluded from tnNlug his scat while
~ hnh complied with those provisions.
lilo may later be expelled from il bv "A
tWu'thlrdH vote VI ltl momhers. hut
under tho circumstances this extrcme
action lWpWsHCs ua na uf doubtful ius.
uc' ur cNpgllUncy n the object h 10
nut an end 20 tho feeble practice ~
p"NEamy yet remaining In Utah. II
Would better We think. be- achieved by
more direct national action"
The town of Magazine. Ark. IL said
to have been destroyed by n tornado.
4 mlALn NJ LhlL LuL-- --.LnhL n. $1,000