Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1899-12-14
His Disabilities Not Removed by
the Statehood Law.
is AFUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
Signers of the Reply State that They
Oppose Mr. Roberts Because Of His
Criminal Practices, Not as IA Result
OF His Politics or Religion.

a delegation representing the Gentlle
element in Utah, who are here to op-
pose Mr.. Roberts. The answer is as
follows:
In this mornings paper Mr.. Rob-
erts makes an appeal for sympathy III
which are many statements needing
correction, while many facts are sup
pressed.
''Mr. Roberts claims that the prece-
dent made by his exclusion is both
new and dangerous. That 1t is not
new was conclusively shown by Mr..
Tayler in his able argument befSre the
house and not single precedent to
the contrary was cited where the
ground of objection was ineligibility.
Neither is the precedent dangerous.
Whenever a prima facie case is made
against u members citizenship by
showing that under conviction for
felony against the laws of the United
States he is disfranchised, and further
that by reason of his present mainten-
ance of the status of polygamist he
is again suffering from civil disability
under the Edmunds anti-polygamy act,
such member refusing even to deny
the charge should be excluded. Nor
is this dangerous, for it is not likely,
as Mr. Roberts seems to assume, that
an entils, minority or all representa-
tives of large state are coming to
congress carrying such a burden. In
other states men who f1aunt their vio-
lations of these laws of decency in
the face of the public are sent to the
pententiary. 1t is only in Utah where
such indecency ever added to ones
eligibility and served as a Tecommen
dation to political preferment.
"Mr. Roberts contention that no
evidence of his guilt can be received
except a judicial record of his convic.
ton in Utah as Il matter of law is
erroneous and as a matter of practice
dangerous, because Mr.. Roberts and
his all powerful and inspired priest
hood can prevent such conviction if
they consider it worth while.
Mr.. Roberts claims that whatever
were his civil disabilities before state
hood they were removed by the adop-
tion of the state constitution. If at
the time of the passing of the enab-
ling act Mr.. Roberts was, as he seems
in his appeal to admit. disfranchised
by act of congress, and therefore not
full citizen of the United States, as
by the constitution he must be. to be-
come a member of congress, then he
is still in that same condition, because
the constitution of Utah could not re-
store him TO federal citizenship and
the enabling act did not do it. The
enabling act of Utah, unlike that of
some other states, required citizenship
of the United States as a qualification
for voting and did not confer that
citizenship LpOn those then not such
citizens. Hence Mr.. Roberts state
ment that by Utah becoming Il state
he was rehabilitated with the wanting
attributes of citizenship is unwarrant-
ed.
Mr.. Roberts says he has not been
convicted since statehood. 1t does
not follow that he is innocent. lie is
now fugitive from justice in Salt
Lake county on "a charge of unlawful
cohabitation, and in Davis county,
Utah, where resides one of his polyg-
amous wives with her illegitimate
twins born August IL, 1897, Il charge
of adultery Ga felony under the laws
of Utah) has been for TWO months
pigeon-holed by Mormon prosecut-
ing attorney.
Mr.. Roberts in his attempt to belit-
tie his crimes insists that he is only
charged with 4 misdemeanor. He
knows better. lie knows that he has
been, under oath and before the prop
er prosecuting officers, charged with
the felony of adultery as well as the
misdemeanOr of unlawful cohabita-
ton. He asserts that in 1889 he
pleaded guilty to misdemeanor only
and asserts that if he were guilty Of
the same acts in the District of CO.
lumbia "even flagrantly so" that as a
member of congress he could not be
arrested therefor because it is only a
misdemeanor. Here again Mr.. Rob
erts states what is not true and he
ought to know it. Unlawful cohabi-
tation under the EdmundS act, under
which he pleaded guilty, was a felony,
as also is adultery, with which Mr..
Roberts is charged in Davis county,
Utah. In the District of Columbia
both unlawful cokabitation and adul-
terry are fclonies, as defined by the
Utah statutes and it is only in Utah
that the former is misdemeanor.
''EX-CongIessman w. II. King was
and is a Mormon and no claim of in
eligibility was ever made against him.
We point to this fact as showing that
we oppose Mr.. Roberts. not upon the
ground of any religious opinions en-
tertained BY MIN, but because of his
criminal practices. Neither is this Il
matter of religious or political perse-
cution or prejudice. The undersigned
include men of different churches and
men who belong to no church. those
who s7e republicans and those who
are Gemoc
''T. c. IlIiif, Salt Lake.
"G. w. Martin, Manti, Utah.
sc. NJ. Owen. Salt Lake.
y. NJ. Coombs, Brigham City, Utah.
:. l.. L Il