The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-24

! IN response TO THIS statement eNttuubu 70
the galleries. many OF the ladies there
The war had not cooled when the White
more case was tried. Mr. Littlefleld said.
He asked where the authority for the
I, abatement that there was an understand
ing between State and the United States
come from. Eloquently he declared that
the idea OF compact between the states
I had been the father OF secession. h.o.ted
oIrt by the lives OF half million men. Mr.
Littlenelds defense Of the proposal OF tho
minority that the house had a right 10 ex-
/ pei Mr.. Roberts concluded his argument.
He aroused great deal OF enthusiasm
/ when he recalled the different positions in
which ex-Speaker Reed had been placed In
! the last congress when General Wheeler
returned from the Spanish war covered
With laurels to resume his scat In the
house and the difficult task OF Speaker
Henderson, then chairman OF the commit
tee on judiciary, who reported against
I General Wheeler. No mere patriotic senti-
ment permitted them 10 override the plain
dictates OF their duty.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Littlefeld's
| speech Mr. Taylor renewed his request Tor
an agreement for vote at 4:3O O'Clock.
This was objected to and Mr.. Roberts was
then given one hour and half In which
to present his side OF the case
The two arguments just presented"
Mr.. Roberts began, made 1t apparent
there was a difference OF opinion as to tho
method of procedure In the case OF the
member from Utah. From his standpoint
he could agree with neither view present
ed. find myself in the position" said
he. "if j might say with propricty.
plague on both sides, since both proposed
my undoing USaughter) But, he
continued. the situation was not altogether
without its advantage He was convinced
with the minority that the house had no
right TO exclude him and with the major
ity that, once admitted, he could not be
expelled. Between the two" said he.
matters fall out about as | would havs
them and substantially justice viii be
done" tRenewed laughter) Mr.. Roberts
gave notice that be should appropriate
the arguments OF the majority against ex-
pulsion and those of the minority against
exclusion. His constitutional qualihca
tfons were admitted by both the majority
and minority OF the committee and he de-
clared that the members Of the house u
they had regard to- the constitution OF
their country. would call him back to the
bar from which be had been improperly
turned away He warned the house &s,at
nations fell because they dropped from
their traditions II nation INDUCED ia
constitutional immortality" II did as did
the individual who was guilty of physical
immortality. He beseeched the house not
70 yield to the clamor Of unthinking peo-
pie What was the emergency for this
proposed departure from tho constitution?
man who had married. in the sanctily
OF the church a plurality Of wives had
been elected TO congress. The cry had
gone up that the American home was en-
dangered and these extraordinary proceed
ings bad been inaugurated against him
For few moment said Mr. Roberts
ri
OF this crime, not with view Of showing
that the American people have not tho
right TO establish mohogamy as system
OF marriage that shall prevail. and not for
the purpose of defending polygamy either
for in the early debate that took place
with reference TO this case on the floor
81 the house then declared that an not
mere 70 represent polygamy, nor 10 defend
~. We have long ago passed that stage
and the thing Ia out of the realm OF the
discussion, do not wish my remarks
construed as defense Of polygamy, but
do want 20 call attention TO the nature of
this crime In order that We may ascertain
whore II Is so awful In it's aspect as 10
warrant more lawless act than polygamy
Itself. IN order to rebuke man who has
been elected TO the house OF rspresenta-
tiyes. Take the Jewish people, who wero
made the depository OF Gods revelation to
humanity You shall moi md the crime
OF polygamv referred to among that peo-
pie az Of the character that II is described
here 10 the report OF the committee Evil
IDENTIFY II is NAHUM prohibition. II Is not nal
IN Sc II II were, You would find tho jury
law enforcing II under some circumstances.
regulating II under other circumstances
6ld men after Gods own heart sustaining
those relations which are now guppogcd
TO justify You In closing the doors AGAINST
me member from Utah, II you 10 10 the
teaching OF the Great Master. whom
think we all revere. although he denounced
every crime, every sin that man can COM
NIT you shall hnd no word OF his In con-
demnation OF the conduct OF the patriarch
or Of the law as IL was given TO Moses and
ancient Israel Last week when taking A
Walk In the resident portion OF your city
l passed n magnificent heroic statue OF
stern old Martin Luther. than whom tho
nations OF Western Europe aud America
owe no man more for the religion and
civil liberty that they now possess~-the
founder OF Protestant Christendom: and
that man who upon that subject which
is here so much discussed. lecturod IN the
carly days OF Protestant ChISstendom
when he was Informed that his disciple.
Carlsbad, was teaching polysamy, replied
i. indeed must confess that can not
protest when one takes many wives for
1t does not contradict the Scriptures
And again In his letter TO Philip. the
Landgraave OF Hesse. remarklne upon the
fact that Philip had taken a second wife.
his hrst wife being still living. he said
In matters OF matrlmony the laws OF
Moses are not revoked or contradicted by
the Gospels
Yet we built monuments to Luther not
withstandlng his liberation and defense
OF that form not for the purpose OF argu-
these things not for tho purpose OF argu-
ing here upon the rights OF polygamy. but
do say what have here remarked for
the purpose OF fixing II in the minds OF
members that II Is merely crime be-
cause prohibited by law. I say that tho
United States had the right to make that
law u they wished to, The States have
the right TO make It, Utah had the RIGHT
10 make II the law OF that State and has
done 80. Consequently Il is outside o, Inc
realm OF discussion further than In this
incidental way"
Mr.. Roberts then explained the Mormon
belief In polygamy aud said the church
thought their creed on this point came
within the constitutional Inhibition Of laws
prohibiting the free exercise OF religious
belief. He then continued. "in 1875 de-
ta t,tAt