The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-15
Mr.. ROBERTS AND CONGRESS-

! New York Sun: All that the new state
| (Utah) undertook to do in respect to
! po.ygamy was to prohibit it forever. The
people have adopted constitution con-
raining double prohibition. The fact
tnat they have not been uniformly sue
cessful in enforcing It, confers no right
! upon the national government TO DENY ia
| utah the privileges of q state. Indeed
there are some constitutional Obligations
winch state cannot be compelled 10
/ comply with. The states are required ia
surrender fugitives from justice from an
otner state, yet there is 70 way of enforc-
ling this command in the event of a refus
al In the case of Utah. however, the new
state appears to have done all she prom
ised the other states, so that the talk
about an unfulfilled compact has no basis
! in fact.
Whatever happens as a result of the
Roberts case, and that the extraordinary
! temper with which the house of repre-
sentatives has taken it up makes il easy
to foreteil. there is no need to fear that
Utah will be read out of the Union.
General News (Ialad, Ida.): One of the
most glaring misstatements, most reck-
less disregards for truth that we have
seen in print in many day was contain
ed in the Salt Lake Tribune of Dec. 10.
when it chronicled TO its readers and TO
the American people that Congressman
Roberts was "a fugitive from justice
Now, the Tribune knows better than that
and it knows more; it knows that the
people know it is making a statement in
direct opposition to the truth.
~.
Pleads that he has respected the law by
not contracting a po.ygamous marriage
since its passage. His continuing marital
relations with three wives, married before
polygamy was made unlawful in Utah. he
claims to be nobody's business, and he in
sists that it is his duty to take care of
those wives.
The great majority of the people of the
United States do not look at the matter
in that light. If Mr.. Roberts desired to
provide for his plural wives he could have
done so without violating the letter or
spirit of the law. If he did not want the
question Of polygam, made a burning
one again. he might have either restricted
himself TO one of his three wives, or re-
Trained from going to congress.
Harper's Weekly: Religious commune
ties and churches all over the country
have beStirred themselves to have Mr.
Roberts expelled from congress. because
he has three wives who were left over
from the period when plural marriages
were fashionable in Utah. and had not
been prohibited by local laws The OPP
ponents of MIR. Roberts aver that he is a
vio.afor of law; that his polygamous con-
dition is an insult to the people of the
United States; that to permit him to sit in
congress is to countenance and encourage
polygamy, and that he was sent to con-
gress expressly that polygamy. through
him, might be condoned and fostered. Mr..
Roberts replies that his redundancy of
wives is more his misfortune than his
fault and was incurred before Utah be-
came a state and prohibited plural mar
riages. He declares that polygamy is
dead in Utah. and has been given up by
the Mormon church. but that no law COM
pes Mormon to abandon such wives as
he had incurred before polygamy was
prohibited. and that there are no legal or
moral reasons why he should abandon the
second and third Mrs. Roberts; but that.
on the contrary, there are obvious moral
reasons why he should continue to cherish
and maintain them. The fight is very hot.
and there is a vast deal of interest in the
outcome of it, The issue would seem to
be one of fact and law and not one of
sentiment or religion. Most of us disbe-
lieve strongly in the expediency as well
as the propriety of polygamy. and fer
vently dislike the Mormon religion, but
we want to see Mr.. Roberts case disposed
OF according to the law and evidence.