The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-24

which to present his side OF the case. He
spoke at hrSt very low. but his voice
soon rose. and he was at ease. apparently.
.erhe two arguments Just presented"
he began, made It appear that there
was difference Of opinion AZ to the
method OF procedure In the case of tho
member from Utah." From his stand
point he could agree with neither view
presented.
Il find myself In the position" said he.
where might say with propriety: "A
plague ON both your houses since both
propose my undoing Qaughter). but
he continued. "the situation was not al
together without It's advantages"
Agrees with both Reports.
He was convinced. with the minority,
that the house had no right to exclude
him. and with the majority. that once
admitted. he could not be expelled.
Between the two," said he. matters
fall out about as ! would have them, and
substantial justice will be done" CRenew-
ed laughter.)
Mr.. Roberts gave notice that he should
appropriate the arguments OF the major
ity against expulsion and those OF the
minority against exclusion.
His constitutional qualifications were ad-
mitted by both the majority and the mi
norlty Of the committee, and he declared
that the members Of the house. II they had
regard for tn 'econstitution Of their coun-
try. would call him back to the bar from
which he had been improperly turned
away.
He warned the house that nations fell
because they separated from their tradi-
tons. If nation INDUCED in ''constitu-
tionai immortality" It died as did the in
dividual who was guilty of physical Inn
morality. He besought the house not to
yield to the clamor of unthinlxing people.
What was the emergency for this propos-
ed departure from the constitution? A.
man who had married in the sanctity of
the church plurality of wives had been
elected to congress. The cry had gone
up that the American home was endan-
gered. and these extraordinary proceed
ings had been inausurated against him.
Talks ON POlygamy.
For few moments" said Mr.. Roberts.
Il want TO pay attention to the nature Of
this crime. not with a view Of showing
that the American people have not the
right to establish monogamy as system
of marriage that shall prevail. and not for
the purpose OF defending polygamy. eth
err; for in the early debate that took place
with reference to this case on the floor
Of the house, then declared that was
not here to represent polygany. nor to
defend 1t.
I'VE have long ago passed that stage.
and the thing is out of the realm OF dis
cussion. I do not wish my remarks con-
strued as defense of polygamy. but I
do want to call attention to the nature of
this crime, in order that we may ascer-
tain whether 1t is so awful in its aspect
as to warrant more lawless act than
poIygamy itself. in order to rebuke a man
who las been elected to the house of rep
reseAtatives. Take the Jewish people.
who were made the repository OF Gods
revelation to humanity. You shall not
find the crime of polygamy referred to
among that people as OF the character it
is described here In the. report Of the COM
mittee. Evidently 1t Is 'malum prohibit
um.' 1t Is not "malum In Sc" II II were.
you would not find the Jewish law enforc-
ing 1t under some circumstances, regulat-
ing 1t under other circumstances, and
men after Gods own heart sustaining
those relations which are now supposed to
justify you In closing the doors against
the member from Utah. II you 70 to
the teaching of the Great Master whom 1
take 1t we all revere, although he de-
nounced every crime, every sin that man
can commit. you shall find no word of
His in condemnation Of the conduct of
the patriarchs or the law as 1t was given
to Moses and ancient Israel.
Luther Indorsed Polygamy.
Last week. when taking a walk in the
residence portion of your city, passed a
magnificent heroic statue of stern old
Martin Luther, whom the nations of
western Europe and America owe no man
more than they do to him for the religious
and civil liberty that they now possess-the
founder Of Protestant Christendom. And
that man, upon this subject that is here
so much denounced. declared in the early
days of Protestant Christendom, when he
was informed that his disciple Carlsbad
was teaching polygamy, I indeed must
confess that 1 cannot protest when one
takes many wives. for it does not CONTRA
dict the scriptures
"And again in his letter to Philip De
Landgraave OF Hesse, remarking upon the
fact that Philip had taken a second wife.
his first wife being still living. ne said: In
the matter of matrimony the lows of Moses
are not revoked or contrdicted by the gos-
pels.'
P0lygAmy Not u Crime.
"Yet we build monuments to Luther. not
withstanding his liberation and defense of
that form of marriage. Now l say all those
things not for the purpose Of arguing here
upon the rights of polygamy, but I do
say what I have here remarked for the
purpose of fixing it in the minds of MEM
bers that 1t Is merely a crime because pro-
hibited by law. L say that the United
States had the right to make that law IL
they wished to. The states have the right
to make it. Utah had the right to make 1t
the law of that state and has done so.
Consequently 1t Is outside Of the realm of
discussion further than in this incidental
way
Mormon Test Case.
Mr. Roberts then explained the Mormon
belief in polygamy, and said the church
thought their creed on this point came
within the constitutional inhibition against
laws prohibiting the free exercise OF re-
lgious belief. He then continues:
I'm 1875. desiring to put the matter to
test and not to be under the odium of vio-
lation of the constitution or the laws Of the
country and being confident that the courts
would sustain the views that they had held.
\ f.taxx fntx