The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-09
ANTI-MORMON LOBBY'S
REPLY TO MR.. ROBERTS
Declares That P0lygamy Is Still
Being Practiced In Utah.

Washington. Dec. S.-An answer to
Mr.. Brigham III. Roberts address to
the American people was MADE To-Day
by a delegation representing the Gen
tile element in Utah who are here to
oppose Mr.. Roberts. The answer is as
follows:
I'm this mornings papers Mr.. Rob-
ertS makes an appeal for sympathy in
which are many statements needing
correction. while many facts are sup
pressed
Mr. Roberts claims that the pre-
cedent made by his exclusion is both
new and dangerous. That it is not new
was conclusively shown by Mr.. Tayler
in his able legal argument before the
house, and not single precedent to the
contrary was cited. where the ground of
objection was inelegibility.
Neither is the precedent dangerous
Whenever a prima. facie case is made
against, a. members citizenship. show
ing that under a conviction for felony
against the laws of the United States
he is disfranchised. and further. that
by reason of his present maintenance
of the status of a polygamist he is
again suffering from civil disability un-
der the Edmunds anti-polygamy act.
such a member refusing even TO deny
the charge should be excluded.
Nor is this dangerous. for it 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 a
burden. In other states men who
fiaunt their violations of these laws of
decency in the face of the public are
sent to the penitentiary. 1t is only in
Utah where such indecency ever ADDED
to ones eligibility and served as a rec
ommendation to political preferment-
An All Powerful Priesthood.
'Mr Roberts contention that no evil
dence of his guilt can be received. ex-
cept a judicial record of his conviction
in Utah. as a matter of law is erroneous
and as a matter of practice dangerous,
because Mr.. Roberts and his all-power-
full priesthood can prevent such con-
viction if they consider it worth while.
MIR. Roberts claims that whatever
were his civil disabilities before state
hood, they were removed by the adop-
ton of the state constitution. If at the
time of the passage of the enabling act
Mr.. Roberts was, as he seems in his
appeal to admit. disfranchised by con-
gress. and therefore not a full citizen
of the United States. as by the constitu-
ton he must be to become a member
of congress, then he is still in the same
condition. because the constitution of
Utah could not restore him to federal
citizenship, and the enabling act did
not do ii.
THE enabling act of Utah. unlike
that of some other states. required citi-
zenship of the United States as a quail
fication 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 rehabilitated with the
wanting attributes of citizenship is I'M
warranted.
Say He Is Fugitive.
"Mr Roberts says he has not been
convicted since statehood. 1t does not
follow that he is innocent. He is now
a fugitive from justice in Salt Lake
county on a charge of unlawful CO.
habitation, and in Davis county, Utah,
where he now resides, one of his lille
gitimate wives, with her illegitimate
twins. born August II, 1897, charge of
adultery Ga felony under the laws of
Utah) has been for two months pigeon
holed by a Mormon prosecuting attor-
ney.
.'Mr. Roberts in his attempts to be-
little his crimes. insists that he is only
charged with a misdemeanor. He
knows better. He knows that he has
been. under oath and before the proper
prosecuting, Oili(Clc 6cu Will lllc
felony of adultery as well as the mis-
demeanor 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 fla
grantly So" that as member of con-
gress he could not be arrested there
for. for it is only a misdemeanor.
Here. again. Mr. Roberts states what
is not true. and he ought to know it,
Unlawful cohabitation, under the Ed
munds act, under which he pleaded
guilty, was a felony. as also is aGul-
terry. with which Mr.. Roberts is charg-
ed in Davis county. Utah. In the Dis
trict of Columbia both unlawful CO.
habitation and adultery are felonies. as
defined by the Utah statutes. and it is
only in Utah that the former is mis-
demeanor.
Warrant His Exclusion.
These charges. in view of the Ed
munds and Edmunds-Tucker laws of
the United States still in force warrant
Mr. Roberts exclusion. They are ag-
gravated, however, because his is not
an isolated case, but one representa-
tive of a system
MANY sentimental people are being
misled by Mr.. Roberts very ingenious
suggestions, from which some people