The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-09
PEOPLE OF UTAH REPLY.
They Arralen Brigham h. Roberts Before
the Country.
CHARGE him With FElOSlOUs CRIMES
They Assert He II Not QuaIincd
Citizen md TINT Utah Has violnt-
ed The Compnct of Statehood.

Washington, December s-The address
| of Brigham H. Roberts to The American
People" was answered today by a delega-
tion representing the GENTLE element in
Utah, who are here to oppose Mr. Rob
| erts. The answer Is as follows:
In this mornings papers Mr.. Roberts
makes an appeal for sympathy In which
are many statements needing correction
while many facts are suppressed. Mr.
Roberts claims that the precedent made
by his exclusion is both new and danger
Gus. That 1t is not new was conclusively
shown by Mr.. Taylor in his able legal ar
gument before the house and not single
precedent to the contrary was cited where
the ground Of objection was inelgibility.
Neither is the precedent dangerous.
Wherever prima facie case is made
against a members citizenship by show
ing that under a conviction for felony
against the laws of the United States ne
Is DISTINGUISHED and further that by rea-
son of his persistent maintenance of the
status of a polygamist he is again suf1er-
munds anti-polygamy act, such a member
refusing even to deny the charge, should
be excluded, Nor Is this dangerous; for
1t is not likely as Mr. Roberts seems TO
assume, that majority or all the rep
resontatives OF a large State are coming
to congress, carrying such burden.
In other States men who naunt their
violations of this law of decency In tho
face of the public are sent to the peni-
Tertiary. II Is only in Utah where such
indecency ever added to ones eligibility
and served as recommendation to po-
litical preferfnent.
Mr. Roberts contention that no evil
dence of his guilt can be resolved except
a judicial record of his conviction in
Utah as a matter law, Is erroneous. ami
as matter Of practice dangerous, because
Mr.. Roberts and his all powerful priest
hopd can prevent such conviction II they
consider 1t worth while.
Mr.. Roberts claims that Whatever we're
his civil disabilities before statehood. they
were removed by the adoption OF the
State constitution. II at the time al the
passage OF the enabling act, Mr.. Roberts
was. as he seems in his appeal to admit,
disfranchised by act of congress, aud
therefore not full citizen OF the United
states as by the constitution he must DO
TO become member of congress, then he
is stili in the same condition because the
constitution of Utah could not restore him
10 Federal citizenship. and the enabling
act did not do so. The enabling act OF
Utah. unlike that of some other States, re-
CURED citizenship of the United States as
qualification for voting and did not
confer that citizenship upon those then
not such citizens. Hence Mr. Roberts
statement that by Utah becoming a State,
he was rehabiitated with the wanting at
tributes of citizenship is unwarranted.
Mr.. Roberts says he has not been COLI
vlcted since Statehood. 1t does not follow
that he is innocent He is fugitive from
justice In Salt Lake county on charge
of unlawful cohabtaton, and in Davis
county, Utah, where he resides one OF his
polygamous wives, with her illegitimate
twins, born August II. 1897, a charge OF
adultery felony under the laws of Utah
has been for two months pigeon holed
by a Mormon prosecuting attorney.
/ Mr.. Roberts in his attempt to belittle
his crimes insists that he is only charged
with misdcmeauor. He knows better. |
He knows that he has been under oath
and before the proper prosecuting officer.
charged with the felony, of adultery as
well rs the misdemeanor of unlawful CO.
habitatlon. He asserts that in 1889 he
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor only and
on the stand also says that IL he were
guilty of the same acts in the District
OF Columbia even iagrantly So" that Is
member of congress he could not DO
arrested therefor because il IS only a
misdemeanor. Here again Mr., Eih,rts /
states what Is not true and he ouglt to |
know 1t. Unlawful cohabtatlon, under |
the Edmunds act under which he PLEADED |
guilty, was felony, as also is adultery !
with which Mr.. Roberts is charged in
Davis county, Utah. In the District cf
Columbia. both unlawful cohabitation and |
nd n or al rata dAHo l..rt 10,
statutes, and 1t Is only in Utah that the |
former Is n misdemeanor.
These charges, in view of the Edmunds |
and Edmunds- Tucker laws. still In force,
warrant Mr.. Roberts exclusion. They are
aggravated, however, because his Is not an
isolated case. but one representative OF
a system. Many sentimental people are
being misled by Mr.. Roberts very 'nge-
NOUS suggestions from which some psopia
infer that he took his polygamous wives
when II was lawful to do SO. This is
a mistake Adultery was crime in Utah
when Mr.. Roberts was born and at tho
time OF the passage OF the Cullom anti
poiygamy act, Mr.. Roberts was only
years old. His plea for sympathy there
lore amounts only to this: That he
should be allowed 10 continue his criminal
practices notwithstanding he took his
polygamus wives In defiance OF law. We
demand that he should support his fam
ines, Dut also demand that he shall cease
the begetting OF further illegitlmate Off
spring and this Is our only bone of con-
tention. the only thing demanded, which
he refused to yield. In this matter we
disclaim any desire to have him declared
ineligible because he Is Mormon, but
solely because he is violating and defying
the laws OF our State. of the United States
and of common decency. Ex-Congressnan
w. n. King was, and Is a Mormon, and
no claim OF ineligibllity was ever made
against him. We point to this fact ms
showing that We oppose Roberts not upon
the ground of any religious opinions en-
tertalned by him. but because OF his GRIM
inal practices. Neither is this mater I
Of religious or political persecution or
prejudice. The undersigned include men
belonging to no church, those who are re-
publcans and those who are democrats
Mr.. Roberts denies, and we assert. thar
the compact between Utah ana the Other I
States has been violated This oomra,t
was evidenced by many public acts as fol.
lows: ,
l. BY the manifestation OF the Mormon
church in 1870, which. by their lea iing d
men, was interpreted under oath 10 nrn,