Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-20


Mr.. Mcpherson / do not understand |
your argument II have understood
you correctly, Tor the las, Eve or ten
minutes you have been arguing that
there was no objection made out In that
country at an to men who were living
10 polysamous relations with wives
married heretofore. Now you are max
Ing an argument that the people were
aroused and protests lodged With Presi-
dent Mckinley. perhaps.
Mr.. Roberts. ! made the exception to
the general statement that there were
few obscure parties and narrow tellg-
ious people who had made these protests
and gathered aflldaylis, but that the
situation was accepted generally by the
people Of the State OF Utah as SET
tied and closed incident and That such
relations with reference 20 polygamous
living that grew out Of past conditions
occasioned no anln0siiies IA the COM
munity, and the settlement fixed b. the
constitutional convection was accepted
by the people. and further that Objec-
lions made 60 the candidates for ap-
pOlntments on these grounds were
waived here al Washington ] myself
congratulated Mr.. Smith upon the fact
that the efforts Of those few parties had
not succeeded In preventing his appoint.
ment 10 the post0fiice at Logan, OF
which place he was In every way
worthy.
The Chairman. Wac he q p0lygomlsP
Mr. Roberts / don't know these pro-
tests were name on that ground.
The Chairman The charges might
have been investigated, for all You
know?
Mr. Roberts. ! can not answer as 70
that These men were not proven guilty
any more chan / have been proven
guilty.
Mr.. Littleheld That ls. there had been
no Indictment and trial?
Mr. Roberta No indictment, no accu-
satl0n before the court, and ! take II
that II was the personal enemies Of Mr..
! Smith, especially there at L0gan--some
0f his competitors for the Office OF post
master at Logan-that undertook this
ecurrilous piece ~ work IL was brushed
aside. and as I be ieve, properly brushed
aside, especially IN view u the settle
! ment " this question In Utah. as II was
understood But Il would be- useless to
say that those protests We're not made
and that these charges were not made
against those candidates for Federal APP
| pontments. They were made, and at
the proper time the fact that they were
made can be sustained by evidence that
| Is not to b. cOntrovcrted.
Mr.. Mcpherson. What II your opln,
| lon u those two men7 Were they poly
| gamists or not, on were they living In
| polygam0us relations?
Mr.. Roberts. All ! can say Is that Il
was generally understood that they
| were, and my recollection Is that--I do
not wish TO do them an lniustice-that
| Mr. Graham, In the controversy OF the
| past, had been convicted Of unlawful
cchabltaiion although l am not sure
With reference 10 that matter I think
| II was the case. and OF course II II Is
The case Il would be established by the
records " The court there
The Chairman. Are they still in Office.
Nh. Robertsg
Mr.. Roberts. Yes, sir; they are stu
in Office.
Mr.. Schroeder, Mr. Smith is not, IS
he?
Mr. Roberts. think SO.
MI Schroeder My impression Is that
his bondsmen are In charge OF the office.
Mr. Roberts. That, however. was not
on account Of pOlygamy. Mr.. Smith
got into some financial distress, and
understood went 10 Alaska and left his
postoflce. and he has since. | under
stand returned from Alaska.
| desire TO cali the attention Of the
committee 10 the fact that after the
settlement OF the question OF the adop-
ton of the constitution and the ex-
lslence of Statehood. there were no pros-
ecutlons FOR unlawful cohabration from
the time OF Statehood until recently.
some four or five months ago, and |
now cali attention 10 the question OF
these laws. There was introduced into
the first Legislators following Statehood
bin upon mis- subject and the legls-
lature refused TO mass II aome OF the
legislators holding that The old Terri
torial law OF 1899 was lucrative and
thar no legislation WAC necessary But
Il was generally believed IN conse-
quence OF the argument and contention
OF Mr. Varian in the constitutional
convention that II the law were valid
that Is the law Of lS92-then the rejec-
tion Of the part OF It that related 20
unlawful cohabltaton was In effect re-
pealed. IN line with the question that
had been submitted to him by Mr.
Evans upon that point
That, OF course, might be a legal fact.
but II was a general understanding;
and that Mr.. Varlan persuaded the con-
yention that the law was invalid Is ey-
idenced by the fact that the convention
thought Il necessary, In order TO meet
the requirements Of the country on the
subject OF polygamy, TO adopt IN the
constitution the section on the subject
Of palygamy, that the point might be
safeguarded. that II that law was in
valid we might go into Statehood with
| something more than vague provision
relating to polygamous or plural mar
riagese.
Mr. Morris l understood you n mo-
ment ago that the supreme court OF
the State OF Utah had held the whole
law OF 1892 valid.
Mr.. Roberts. | am coming to that
Mr. Morris. And therefore that Mr.
Varian's position was not sound.
Tho Chairman And that All the pro-
visions OF that law continued in forces
Nr Roberts. I have already stated
v-hot the general UNDERSTANDING ~ that
matter wss The state leeislature nm
polnted code eomnisslon 40 codify
me laws of the STATE. and OF course il
. / ,,.a - 49, .stf 49,