Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-06
Mr.. Roberts Amenability While
Living in the District.
AFFECTED BY TIE EDMUNDS Law
Presents His Case to the Investi-
eating Committee.
7 HE HEARING TODAY

tense, TO reply to very S1gnlhcant QueS-
| tion which was put to him by Chairman
Tayler, and which clearly indicates one pos
| sible ground for an adverse decision in his
case.
Chairman Tayler asked him, in effect.
whether he was not subject to the Edmunds
act when attempting to hold office in the
District of Columbia. because the Edmunds
act is still applicable here.
Mr.. Roberts evaded the issue thus raised
and never took it up again.
1t is certain that the committee will take
cognizance of this feature of the case. 1t
| will be urged when the committee consid-
ers the case that Mr.. Roberts is a polyga-
mist in Utah. He is therefore a polygamist
in the District of Columbia while here.
Section of the Edmunds act provides
that no polyga mist shall hold Office in a
place over which the United States has eX-
elusive jurisdiction.
Supreme Court decision is at hand to
support the charge that Mr.. Roberts brings
his polygamous condition with him when
he comes to the District of Columbia; that
the word polygamist means in the
status or condition of having more than one
wife; just as Congress might make SIM
liar declaration respecting a married man.
And man who has a wife is surely a
married man in the District of Columbia
wherever his wife may be.
Inc court has held, however that this is
not penal provision. 1t only refers to his
ineligibility to hold Office
Mr.. Roberts in His Own Defense.
Mr.. Roberts Of Utah continued in his own
defense before the special committee of the
House this morning.
Taking up the question of the compact
between the state of Utah and the United
States government he showed that the
constitutional convention of Utah had
adopted the language of the enabling act
with reference to polygamy. Mr. Roberts
review the deliberations of the constitu-
tional convention constituting the import of
the acts Of the convention as prohibiting
future polygamous marriages, but not
touching unlawful cohabitation or polyg-
amy.
Mr.. Roberts made the assertion that the
convention plainly understood t:lat the Ian
guage Of the enabling act referred alone to
the subject of future plural marriages. and
did not intend to disturb existing marital
relations. He said that reference to the lat
ter branch Of the subject was purposeIy
omitted.
Did Not Touch Existing Relations,
Your idea, then," asked Judge Freer of
the committee, "is that all that Congress
demanded was the prohibition of future
plural marriages."
Yes. SIR answered Mr.. Roberts. land
that is what the constitutional convention
thought
Il think it is decidedly clear continued
Mr. ROBERTS, after reading at length from
the record OF the convention, that every
one thought that Congress did not intend
to disturb existing marital relations"
He stated that the proceedings were pub
nc, the attention of all people in Utah was
called to them. and no one took exception
to the general understanding at that time
existing.
Mr.. Roberts repudiated the idea that the
on the United States. He said such an as
sertion was, to his mind. ridiculous
Feeling in Congress.
Mr.. Lands of Indiana, member of the
committee, called the attention of Mr.. Rob-
erts to the debates in the United States
House of Representatives attending the
pe sage of the Utah enabling act
1t is evident" asserted Mr.. Lands, that
members of the House did not contemplate
any fine distinctions between future polyga-
nous marriages and the condition of living
in polygamy."
Mr. Roberts said the people of Utah saw
difference, however, and so interpreted
the intention of Congress. He realized that
there was lack of harmony between him
ana the committee ON the subject, but he
was expressing the sentiment of the people
Of Utah.
Appointment of POIyEamists
Mr.. Roberts said that men living in the
practice of polygamy had been appointed GO
federal office and that the President had
been advised of their polygamy However,
no animosities had been occasioaed in
Utah. The objections had even been waived
aside in Washington.
Are these men still in Officer" asked Mr.
Tayler.
They are,' said Mr.. Roberts
The office of one of them is in the
hands of his bondsmen,'' interrupted Mr.
Schroeder.
But not for polygamy,' returned Mr..
Roberts.
He has accumulated other offenses," sug-
gested Mr.. Littlefield.
Mr.. Roberts explained that the official
had fallen into some financial embarrass-
ments and went to Alaska, but had since
returned.
Mr. Roberts strenuously insisted that the
officials at Washington knew of the polyea-
nous relations of these federal office hold
ers, but no action was taken against them
Neither had any one in Utah objected ex-
cept the few narrow-minded religious
bigots" who had collected the afidavits
against them. He said the affidayits were
sent to the White House and their re-
ceipt had been acknowledged.
Sentiment in Utah.
Speaking of the customs existing in Utah
Mr.. Roberts said that the ladies in Utah
who are involved in plural marriages are
generally received in Gentle society. There
is no disposition in the community to take
harsh view of the marital relations pre-
viously formed. He said that since the ad-
mission of the state there had been no
friction in the state over this subject until
a sensational newspaper had raised the
subject, and induced an informer to raise
evidence against him.
He said that public sentiment had been
bod hnav, nTSl lna hxyf f,l-
and calls upon Congress to exceed its
powers, to go outside of the rights to pro-
tect the American home against an insti-
tuition which exists on the other side OF
the Rocky mountains
'1f it were at all proper and necessary"
said Mr.. Roberts with significant emphasis,
II could call the attention of Congress
and this committee to 10000 evils that
threaten the American home more than the
institution which is now inveighed against"
Qualifications Fixed by the Constitu-