The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-12-09
Charges Of Adultery Are Nov Pending
Against Him In State Of Utah.
MARRIED WIVES IN DEFIANCE OF LAW
Neither Political Prejudice Nor Religious pesscu'
ton Have AuI Fart In ihs Opposition 10 Rob-
sn's Compact has Been Violated.

Washington, Dec. 9.--An answer 10
Mr.. Brigham Roberts's address TO the
American people has been issued by
delegation representing the GENTLE
element of Utah, who are here TO OPP
pose Mr.. Roberts. The answer IN part
is as follows:
Mr.. Roberts claims that the precedent
made by his exclusion is both new and
dangerous. That IL is not new was
shown by Mr.. Taylor (Ohio) in his able
argument before the House. and not a
single precedent TO the contrary was
cited where the ground OF objection was
ineligibllity. Neither is the precedent
dangerous. Whenever a ''prima facie
case is made against "A members ; citi-
zenship by showing that under "a con-
viction of felony against the laws Of
the United states, he is disfranchised,
and further that by reason OF his pres
ent maintenance of the status of
polSgamist he is again suffering from
civil disability under the Edmunds anti
polygamy act, such a member refusing
even to deny charge should be ex-
cluded. Nor is this dangerous; for 1t is
not likely, as Mr.. Roberts seems To as
sumo, that an entire minority OF all
Representatives OF a large state are
coming to congress carrying such
burden.
ERRONEOUS CONTENTION.
MIR. Roberts contention that no evil
dence OF his guilt can be received except
a. judicial record OF his conviction in
Utah as a matter of law is erroneous,
ana as "A matter of practice dangerous,
because Mr.. Roberts and his all-power
ful priesthood can prevent such con-
victfon il they consider it worta 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 passage OF the
enabling act Mr.. Roberts was. as he
seems in his appeal 90 ADMIT, disfran-
.hised by act OF Congress, and there
fore not a fun ,4Uzen of the United
States, as by the Constitution he must
be To become a member OF Congress,
then he Is still i'm the same condition,
because the constitution OF Utah did
not restore him To federal citizenship,
and the enabling act did not do 1t. The
ENABLING act of Utah required citizen
ship OF the United States as qualin-
cation for voting, and did not confer
that citizenship upon those then not
such citizens.
\ FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE.
Mr.. Roberts says h has not been
convicted since Statehood. 1t does not
follow that ne is innocent. He is now
n fugitive from justice in Salt Lake
county on "a charge of unlawful CO.
habitation, and i'm Davis county, Utah,
where resides one OF his polygamous
wives with her illegitimate twins. born
Aug. IL. 1897, a charge OF adultery Ca
felony under the laws Of Utah)has been
for two months pigeon-holed by Nor
mon prosecuU,ng attorney.
Mr.. Roberts insists that he is only
charged with "A misdemeanor Heknows
better. He knows that he has been
charged with the felony OF adultery as
we'll as the misdemeanor of unlawful
cohabitation. He asserts that in 1889
he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
only. and also says that If he were
guilty OF the same acts in the District
OF Columbia, "even fiagrantly So" as "a
member Of Congress. he could not be
arrested therefor because IL is only
misdemeanor Here again. Mr.. Roberts
states what is not true. Unlawful co.
habitation under the Edmunds act un-
der which he pleaded guilty, was
felony, as also is adultery. with which
Mr.. Roberts is charged i'm Davis county.
Utah. In the District OF Columbia both
unlawful cohabitation and adultery are
fefonies.